HKSAR v. Ng Shuk Man

DCCC613/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 613 OF 2009

----------------------

----------------------

----------------------------

Reasons for Sentence

----------------------------

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of dangerous drugs, namely 30.81 grammes of a powder containing 25.44 grammes of ketamine.

2.The prosecution case was that at about 11.30 pm on 18 March 2009, two police witnesses intercepted the defendant and her friend for an inquiry when they were walking hurriedly and furtively outside Yau Tong Centre. During a body search, three resealable transparent plastic bags of ketamine were found hidden inside the defendant’s underpants. The defendant said that those drugs were for her own consumption.

3.In the record of interview she further said that after she bought the drugs from Ah Lung for $1,900, she put it inside her underpants. She then took a taxi to Yau Tong Centre. Her father gave her $100 per day. She also worked as a part-time waitress four to five days a month. She started to take ketamine 3 months ago by sniffing. She took ketamine when she had money and she purchased in large quantity for a cheaper price. This is the first time she bought drugs from Ah Lung.

4.In mitigation, I was told that the defendant is now 19 years of age, clear record, she came from a broken family, her parents got divorced when she was 4 years’ old.

5.The defendant’s father, her aunty, the social worker and the defendant herself all wrote letters to this court to plead for leniency. The defendant is very regretful for her own conduct and asked for a Probation Order as she now has learnt a lesson and she wished to turn over a new leaf. Her relatives all say the same thing, that she was good at study but she was under the influence of her friends that she dropped out from school. She even gave up an opportunity to study in the States when her mother intended to send her abroad.

6.Having heard the mitigation from the defence, I called for a DATC Report.

7.Today, the defendant’s parents, aunty, social workers, are all in court to demonstrate their support to her.

8.The report is now before me and it says that the defendant is a drug addict. She started taking drugs since 2005. Each time she spent about $90 to $500. Apart from ketamine, she tried “Ice”, cocaine and “Five Chai”. During the bail period of this case she continued to take drugs and her last dosage of ketamine, Ecstasy and “Five Chai” was in July 2009. The DATC Report recommends that the defendant was suitable to be admitted into DATC.

9.She was originally charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs. She was very lucky that the prosecution accepted to amend the charge to possession of dangerous drugs.

10.As I have told the defendant before, for the quantity involved, she can expect a sentence of 5 years as a starting point.

11.Today the prosecution referred me to a Court of Appeal case, HKSAR v Yuen Yat Hung, CACC59/2009, that the applicant, who was 26 years of age, also pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of dangerous drugs of 22.88 grammes of ketamine in the District Court. He had five previous convictions, two convictions related to drug offence. The court allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of 16 months after one-third discount from 24 months.

12.In the present case, the quantity involved is equally substantial as the purity was 25.44 grammes. The defendant had been a cocktail drug addict since 2005. The difference between the case of Yuen Yat-hung and the present case was that Yuen Yat-hung was not a drug addict.

13.That being the case, rehabilitation for the defendant is equally important. She is 19 years of age but was an addict since the age of 15. Her drug problem should be addressed and be dealt with, and to this end I adopt the recommendation by the DATC Report the defendant be sentenced to DATC with conviction recorded.

14.I was asked not to make an order to record the conviction because the defendant’s mother is now applying to emigrate to the States. It impliedly meant that if her application was successful, she would bring the defendant with her in the future.

15.I refuse the defence application because the circumstances do not justify it. First, the quantity of drugs involved was 25 grammes; second, she has been a cocktail drug abuser for 4 years, and for this reason I refuse the application.