HKSAR v. Su Hui Feng

DCCC1154/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1154 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant has pleaded guilty today to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs. On 21 August this year, she was arrested due to a stop and search by a police officer. She was found to be in possession of 51.04 grammes of a powder containing 30.26 grammes of ketamine.

2.The facts of this case are very simple, straightforward. Police officers were on an anti-narcotics operation in Mongkok and observed the defendant boarding a taxi. The police followed the defendant’s taxi in a police vehicle. When she alighted from the taxi at Portland Street, Mongkok, she was intercepted. The police searched her person and property and found two transparent plastic bags of white powder inside her handbag. She was arrested and cautioned.

3.Under caution, she admitted she intended to sell the ketamine to nightclub girls for a profit. This verbal admission was post-recorded. The defendant refused to sign the officer’s statement. Later that day, there was a house search and the police found suspect items, including a pile of transparent plastic bags and two spoons.

4.Mr Li has tried his best to mitigate on behalf of the defendant today. In mitigation, I have heard about the defendant’s background. She has two daughters. One is in court today to support her. She is about to be or is in the process of separating and divorcing her husband. That is one of the reasons for her committing this offence to bolster her financial position.

5.I have heard also that she has been diagnosed with benign breast lesions. Luckily, there is no malignancy. There is a full report before the court. It seems from the report there is no imminent danger or problem that must be immediately addressed. In any event, the defendant will of course be given appropriate medical treatment if required whilst in remand.

6.The defendant has written a letter to the court, asking for leniency and expressing her remorse. In fact, the defendant’s best mitigation today is her plea of guilty. The defendant is not a woman of clear record, has two previous convictions that are similar: one in 2005 for which she served a 3‑year sentence, and the last conviction was this year, only three months prior to this offence. I will not of course in this case be taking her previous convictions as an aggravating factor, but the defendant must be warned if she continues to commit drug-related offences, in particular trafficking, on the next occasion the court may take a different view.

7.I will sentence today according to the guidelines set out for trafficking ketamine. These guidelines come from the authority of Secretary of Justice v Hii Siew Cheng CAAR No. 7 of 2006. The Court of Appeal in that authority is of the view that when a defendant traffics between 10 and 50 grammes of ketamine, a 4 to 6‑year term of imprisonment is appropriate. I see no reason to depart from these guidelines. I have taken into account all the mitigation put forward, and I have taken into account the quantity, 30.26 grammes of ketamine involved in this case.

8.Now, please stand up, Defendant. I will take a starting point, after all those factors are taken into consideration, of 5 years’ imprisonment. The defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for her plea today. After I have taken that discount into account, the defendant is sentenced to this charge to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.