HKSAR v. Choi Lai Chu, Connie

DCCC872/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 872 OF 2009

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 25.97 grammes of a powder containing 21.71 grammes of ketamine.

2. She has also pleaded guilty to the 2nd charge of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause in that she had failed to surrender to custody as was appointed by the District Court.

3. The facts admitted show that on 13 June 2009 police officers saw the defendant acting rather suspiciously and holding something in her right hand.  They stopped her and in her right hand was found the drugs, which is the subject matter of the 1st charge.

4. Under caution, the defendant admitted that she was helping someone to deliver ketamine for $500, and that she had been coerced to do so. 

5. She was subsequently interviewed and she said that she had been asked by a person called “Wu Lei” to pick up the packet of drugs and take it home, and wait for his further instructions. 

6. She said she was coerced by “Wu Lei” because that man knew that she was indebted, and she said that she took the risk of trafficking in these drugs because she was receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance and she had to take care of her daughter.

7. No drugs were found in her home.

8. The defendant was admitted to bail and was to appear in the District Court for trial on 20 January.  The defendant failed to turn up, a warrant was issued for her arrest, and she was rearrested on 24 January 2010.

9. For the purposes of this sentencing, I will treat her as having a clear record.

10. The defendant is aged 41, and I am told has a 20-year-old daughter.

11. Mr McGuinniety has said everything he can possibly say in mitigation on her behalf.  In fact, Mr McGuninniety has given an exemplary example of how mitigation should be done for defendants charged with these offences.

12. The fact of the matter is that trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very very serious offence in Hong Kong. It is very difficult to detect and for every 10 persons arrested, 9 goes free. The only way that the courts can help stem hopefully the tide of drug trafficking and to try and stop the supply to young people in our society, whether in school or in nightclubs, or discotheques, the court has to hand down severe sentences to deter people from participating in this trade, whether for easy money, or to pay off their debts, for whatever reason.

13. The court has recognised that ketamine has become more pervasive in our society, and so recently guidelines had been issued in the case of Hii Siew Cheng where the court have handed down guidelines that for trafficking in between 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine, that would merit a sentence of 4 to 6 years.

14. Therefore, the defendant in this case trafficking in 21.71 grammes of ketamine would merit a sentence starting point of up to 4½ years.

15. Whilst it is true that very often the courts have to use a form of mathematical calculation for this type of offence, and personal background really pales into insignificance when compared to the harm that these drugs could cause in our society, nevertheless, it does not stop a judge in considering sentence from considering any special circumstances.

16. The defendant admittedly had had a pitiful background, but as often is the case, one is only a victim if one allows oneself to be a victim.

17. She is aged 41 and has a 20-year-old daughter, and it is time for that the defendant grows up, recognises her adult responsibility to her daughter, instead of indulging in alcohol and gambling. It is no way to be raising a child.  However, it is clear that the defendant’s daughter very much loves her mother, and it is to the defendant’s credit that she has such a loving daughter.

18. The defendant, apart from the situation of her marital difficulties, is no different from many drug traffickers who come before these courts.  They often come before these courts because they need money.  They need money because either they are lazy to get good work, or they have indulged themselves in gambling and owe a lot of debt, and so they willingly carry these drugs.

19. So if this court is lenient with the defendant, it would send a clear message to the drug traffickers and to those who are tempted to make easy money to pay off their gambling debts, that they can come before this court and plead that they have a poor background, either orphaned, or marital difficulties, and get a lighter sentence.  That should not be the case.  Because the sentence that this court hands down needs to send a clear message to others like the defendant who willingly carries these drugs, whether to repay debt or to get easy money, that the court will view this as a very severe action.

20. But I do consider that the defendant has a clear record and this will be her first time in prison, so I will take the lower of the starting point.  Instead of 4½ years, I will take a 4 year starting point and reduce it to 32 months because of her plea.  That is for the 1st charge.

21. For the 2nd charge, I consider that it is very serious also not to appear for trial.  It is a breach of trust of the court that the court has granted the defendant bail on the basis that the court trusts that she will appear at the appointed time.  A lot of public expenses have been wasted because of the warrant of arrest had to be issued, the trial had to be put back, and so the sentence, a starting point of 12 months reduced to 8 because of the defendant’s plea.

22. Having a look at the totality principle, I will make 4 months of that 8 months consecutive to the 32 months in the 1st charge, so the defendant goes to prison for 36 months.