HKSAR v. Lam So Yi, Zoe

DCCC 404/2020

[2021] HKDC 364

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 404 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.The defendant on this indictment faces a single charge of possession of dangerous drugs, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.On 26 November in Yuen Long, the defendant was found in possession of 0.59 gramme of ketamine and 0.01 gramme of fluorodeschloroketamine.

3.The facts are very simple.  The vehicle was stopped on 26 November at about 11.21 in the evening.  The defendant was in the front passenger seat and, on a search, two packets of drugs were found in her trouser pocket.  Subsequent government chemist certificate revealed the contents which is set out in the charge.  The defendant was arrested and cautioned.  She admitted they were “K Tsai” and were for her own self-consumption.

4.The defendant’s background is that she is currently aged 25.  She, at this point, lives with her father and her 6-year-old son in Shek Kip Mei and she was educated to Form 6 level and worked as a clerk.

5.She has a number of previous convictions.  On her antecedent statement, she is recorded as being a drug addict, although it would appear she is no longer drug dependent.  Her criminal record shows that she has been convicted of drug offences since 2015.  In 2015, she was sentenced to drug addiction treatment centre for possession of dangerous drugs.  Since then, she has further convictions for possession of dangerous drugs and has been sentenced to periods of imprisonment for her possession of those drugs. Most recently, 2019 September, sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment for possession of dangerous drugs.

6.As far as the other matters that the court has to concern itself in sentencing the defendant are the fact that she has been assessed both for a probation order and also for a drug addiction treatment centre order.

7.The conclusion of the probation office is that the defendant had no interest in residential drug treatment and they say, considering her lack of reflection, misbehaviour, the ineffectiveness of her rehabilitation plan, probation is not recommended in her case, so that option can be ruled out for the defendant. 

8.The second option for the defendant would be an order under the Drug Addiction Treatment Centres Ordinance and I requested an assessment for her.  The result of that assessment is similar to the conclusions of the probation officer’s report as to the defendant’s lack of interest in dealing with her addiction. 

9.Nevertheless, the medical officer carefully examined the defendant and is of the opinion she is no longer a drug dependent. Therefore, she is considered not suitable for admission to a drug addiction treatment centre.  That is also an option that is effectively ruled out for the defendant.

10.Proceeding to sentence, I bear in mind that she has pleaded guilty, that she is a young lady still, and that she is in fact a mother with some responsibility at least for the 6-year-old son living in Shek Kip Mei.

11.The defendant has been convicted of possession of what is a reasonably small quantity of ketamine and a derivative of ketamine. The normal sentence for simple possession of a dangerous drug can on average between 6 to 18 months’ imprisonment. 

12.Given that the other options for sentence are not available, I have determined, that having regard to the defendant’s past record and her present condition, that a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate for her. 

13.What I shall do is impose a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment.  Having regard to her plea of guilty, that will be reduced to 8 months’ imprisonment after one-third deduction for her plea of guilty. The sentence of this court will be one of 8 months’ imprisonment.