HKSAR v. Yau Suet Yim

DCCC462/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 462 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one each count of trafficking in ketamine, that of possession of 0.18 gramme of ketamine and of possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug.

The Prosecution’s case

2.On 20 February 2009, a party of police officers mounted an anti-dangerous drug operation in a building on Tung Choi Street. At about 11.27 pm on the same day, the police saw the defendant and another female coming out from a flat on the 1st floor of the building. Defendant was intercepted while the other female made good of her escape.

3.Police gained entry into the said flat. Inside the flat, police conducted a body search on the defendant. Inside the bag carried by the defendant, the police found 14 packets (Exhibit P1) containing a total of 55 grammes of a powder containing 45.13 grammes of ketamine and another 4 packets (Exhibit P2) containing 47.95 grammes of a powder containing 39.3 grammes of ketamine. Upon caution, the defendant claimed that the ketamine was for her own consumption.

4.A house search was conducted. The police found a plastic bottle (Exhibit P3) containing 205 millilitres of a liquid containing 0.07 (gramme?) of methamphetamine. In another bedroom, a piece of paper (Exhibit P4) was found to contain 0.22 gramme of a powder containing 0.18 gramme of ketamine.

5.When the defendant was further cautioned, she said that she used the plastic bottle for inhaling Ice and the ketamine in her room was for her own consumption.

6.Chemical analysis confirmed the quantity and the nature of the dangerous drug so seized.

Mitigation

7.The defendant is now 27 years old and had a clear record. She finished Form 3 and spent 2 years in Kwai Chung Technical Institute. She is a divorcee since June 2007 and has a 6-year-old daughter whom is under the custody of her former husband. Because of her failure in marriage and association of undesirable elements, she took drugs.

8.It was submitted that the defendant was just carrying the 18 packets of ketamine for the other lady who managed to escape. The defendant received no reward. Nor was she a drug dealer. The defendant submitted mitigation letters written by herself, her mother, her former employer and a social worker. They all plead for leniency for the crime committed by the defendant.

Sentence

9.The only substantial mitigating factor for the defendant is her guilty plea for which she is entitled to have one-third discount of the sentence. That is a wise decision as she was caught red-handed. In the bag carried by the defendant, there were a total of 18 packets containing a total of 102.95 grammes of a powder containing 84.43 grammes of ketamine.

10.Since June last year, in light of the prevalence of ketamine and its harmful effect, the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Hii Siew Cheng CAAR7/2006 has promulgated a new set of sentencing guideline for offences of trafficking in ketamine. For those who are convicted of trafficking in ketamine for a quantity ranging from 50 grammes to 300 grammes, the sentence will be from 6 to 9 years.

11.In the present case, the quantity of ketamine involved is 84.43 grammes of ketamine. I have considered the defendant’s mitigation and her personal background and would take a lenient stance. I adopt a starting point of 6 years and 3 months, that is 72 months. With the guilty plea, I reduce the sentence to 50 months.

12.Charge 2 relates to the simple possession of 0.18 gramme of ketamine. I take a starting point of 12 months and would not enhance the sentence based on the latent risk factor. With her plea, I reduce the sentence to 8 months. Taking into account of the totality principle, this sentence is to be served concurrently with the first sentence.

13.As regards Charge 3, I adopt the starting point of 6 months and reduce it to 4 months. Again, I order this sentence be served concurrently with the two sentences abovementioned.

14.In gist, the defendant is sentenced to an imprisonment term of 50 months.