COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug and two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug.
On 2 November 2011, the defendant was intercepted by a team of police officers. Forty packets containing a total of 62.35 grammes of ketamine were found inside her handbag. A further search of her residence revealed another 595.79 grammes of ketamine, some plastic bags and electronic scales.
The total seizure that day is 658.14 grammes and the street value is estimated to be over HK$100,000.
Back in the police station the defendant further admitted that she had been running such an operation of packaging and delivering drugs since July 2010.
The defendant is 23 and has received education up to Form 7 level. She came from an ordinary class family. It was when she mingled with dubious peers after transferring to a different school after Form 5 that started her now regretful path in dealing drugs. I was a little surprised by her good background.
Family and relatives have furnished to this court a number of mitigating letters. I have read all of them and I fully appreciate their request for leniency on her behalf. However, since the guidelines are set, my sentencing powers are greatly limited.
I first deal with the two substantive trafficking charges.
Count 3 is the more serious one. Guidelines in sentencing are clear. The starting point for trafficking in 600 grammes of ketamine is one of 12 years’ imprisonment.
Insofar as Count 2 as concerned, the starting point should be set at no less than 6 years’ imprisonment.
Given the defendant’s plea, the sentence in respect of Count 3 and Count 2 is reduced to 8 years and 4 years respectively.
In view of the total quantity seized that day and the circumstances of the seizure, plus the fact that some of the drugs were for her own consumption, the sentences imposed on Count 2 and Count 3 are ordered to run concurrently to each other.
Insofar as the 1st count is concerned, there is no concrete evidence to indicate the quantity involved. Looking at the amount of money recorded in the two notebooks, I believe the quantity involved cannot be said to be small. The operation also lasted over one year.
However, given the fact that it was the defendant’s own frank confession that led to her being indicted for the 1st count, I am prepared to give her the maximum benefit. As such, in respect of Count 1, a term of 2 years’ imprisonment will be adopted as the starting point. Given her plea, the sentence is reduced to one of 16 months’ imprisonment. This 16 months is, however, to be served consecutively to the 8 years’ imprisonment imposed on Counts 2 and 3.
In conclusion, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.