CRIMINAL CASE NO. 409 OF 2010
COURT: These defendants pleaded guilty at committal on 26 November 2010, in the case of the 1st defendant, to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs. That involved 787.02 grammes of a solid containing 605.32 grammes of ketamine, 2.86 grammes of a solid containing 2.05 grammes of cocaine, and 77 tablets containing 0.51 grammes of nimetazepam.
The 2nd accused, on the same day, pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs and one charge of using a forged identity card. The 2nd charge involved 6.44 grammes of a solid containing 4.84 grammes of ketamine. Charge 3 involved 269.10 grammes of a solid containing 206.12 grammes of ketamine and 6.09 grammes of a solid containing 4.22 grammes of cocaine.
The defendants confirmed their pleas before me today and also confirmed the facts that they had admitted at committal. Briefly, those facts show that patrolling police officers, saw through the door of a residential premises, saw the 1st defendant acting suspiciously inside. They revealed their identity and attempted to enter when they saw him try to shut the door.
On entry, they saw the 2nd defendant in a bedroom of the flat. The 1st defendant was found in a bedroom with the dangerous drugs the subject of Charge 1 scattered on the floor, the bed, and inside the wardrobe drawers. In addition there were found 966 plastic bags and two electronic scales.
Under caution, the 1st defendant admitted that he knew the drugs were ketamine, “coke” and “Ng Chai”. He said that the dangerous drugs belonged to him. He also said he had just been released from prison and that he had no money, so he sold the ketamine to obtain funds. He had in his possession a key to the flat.
The 2nd defendant admitted sneaking into Hong Kong. Dangerous drugs were found in her handbag; that is the subject of Charge 3. She claimed that those drugs were for her own consumption. She had the key to the premises. Subsequently, she admitted having more drugs at her home at a different address, and that they belonged to the 1st defendant, who had hired her to deliver dangerous drugs. She led police to the address, and there 23 packets of ketamine and 22 packets of cocaine, the subject of Charge 3, were found.
Also found was a Hong Kong identity card in the name of another person which was subsequently found to be forged. This card had been used by the 2nd defendant in order to rent the premises.
The fingerprints of both the 1st and 2nd defendant were found at the first address.
In their video interviews, both made admissions. The 1st defendant said he had bought the dangerous drugs, that he repacked them and resold them. He said he had been renting the flat since March 2010, and he would make deliveries of dangerous drugs when customers telephoned him.
The 2nd defendant claimed that the 1st defendant owned the drugs and had placed the drugs in her premises. The 1st defendant had hired her to make deliveries. She began making deliveries in April 2010, and she was paid $20 or $50 each time she made a delivery. She confirmed that she had used the identity card to rent the flat knowing it was a forged identity card.
The Government Chemist’s analysis confirmed the quantities of drugs were as set out in the particulars of the charge.
The 1st defendant has a record starting in 2000. There are 12 convictions, including possession of dangerous drugs and Part I poisons, and in 2003 there were four charges of trafficking for which he was convicted and sentenced. His most recent offence was a trafficking offence in 2008 for which he was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, and there was a further conviction for possession of dangerous drugs for which he was sentenced in October of 2009.
In mitigation, I was advised that the 1st defendant was the youngest of three sons; that his mother had died when he was 8 years old. Subsequently, his father remarried. He himself was divorced. He had a son of 8 who was in a home. After his last sojourn in Hei Ling Chau he wanted to reform. He wanted to take his son home, but he said he needed money to get social welfare approval to enable him to do so. That was the reason that he gave for committing this offence.
His strongest mitigation, in fact his only mitigation in this case, is his plea of guilty.
In respect of the 2nd defendant, I was advised that she was educated to Form 2 in mainland China; that she had been working as a factory worker and as an assistant in a hair salon. She sneaked into Hong Kong in 2008, and she was then repatriated. Her father is the sole family breadwinner. Her mother does not work because she has diabetes, and the family is in debt to friends and relatives for the medical expenses that the mother requires.
Again, the major mitigation on her behalf is the fact that she has entered these pleas of guilty.
Through her counsel she advised the court that she did not know originally what she was delivering, but she worked it out when she saw the defendant snorting dangerous drugs and apparently hallucinating.
I have considered the cases that have been referred to me by counsel and the tariff cases that are relevant to these offences.
In respect of the 1st charge involving the 1st defendant, I take into account the tariffs for cocaine and for ketamine. I take a starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment. Giving the defendant the benefit of the one-third discount, he is sentenced to 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. I include in that 14 years the nimetazepam.
In respect of the 2nd charge, I take a starting point of 3 years, and sentence the 2nd defendant to 16 months’ imprisonment.
In respect of the 3rd charge, I take a starting point of 10 years, and sentence the 2nd defendant to 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
In respect of the use of the forged ID card, I sentence her to the standard 15 months’ sentence which is available on a plea of guilty.
I note that the 2nd defendant committed these offences whilst she was withyin the term of a suspended sentence, and I think it is appropriate that that sentence be activated in this case.
I order that the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 run concurrently.
I order that the sentence an Charge 4 runs consecutively to those for Charges 2 and 3, and order that the suspended sentence will run consecutively tothe sentence on Charges 2, 3 and 4.
The 2nd defendant is sentenced to 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment in respect of Charges 2 and 3, plus 15 months, plus 4 weeks.