HKSAR v. Ramirez Beltran Claudia Lorena

DCCC 41/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 41 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges, the first being trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, and the second charge is possession of dangerous drugs under the same ordinance.

2.The facts are relatively straightforward.  On 18 November last year the police had a search warrant for the defendant’s premises.  As she entered the premises the police intercepted her.  The defendant was searched.  Keys to the premises were found on her person, as well as a small amount of two types of drugs, the first being cocaine and the second being a very small amount of what is abbreviated as “TFMPP”.

3.Obviously the house was then searched, and the police found the drugs of Charge 1 in a microwave.  There was cocaine found in several bags.  The total amount of cocaine was 7.61 grammes.  In addition, the police found paraphernalia associated with packing drugs, including many small resealable plastic bags, metal spoons and electronic scales.  The police also found cash of several currencies in the defendant’s wallet.

4.The defendant was cautioned and interviewed under caution.  She admitted all the drugs found belonged to her.  It seems that from the facts, she took over the premises from a Venezuelan lady.

5.It is agreed that the street value of the amount of cocaine found in the premises was about HK$20,000.

6.I have also been presented with a report from a doctor explaining what “TFMPP” is and what it does, and it seems it is a drug similar to “Ecstasy”.  It is not a tranquilliser or for insomnia.

7.As I have said, the defendant made a full admission to the police and has pleaded guilty today.  Her plea is her best mitigation.

8.The defendant comes from Colombia, and arrived in Hong Kong in 2011.  She applied for asylum in March 2012.  She has a clear record in Hong Kong.

9.Today I have received a letter from the defendant expressing remorse and explaining her family background, personal background, and why she came to Hong Kong.  If what she says in her letter is all true, she has had a tragic upbringing.  She admits that she has been using drugs since she was a young teenager.  She is now 30 years old.  She has been using drugs on and off all her life, but has tried to receive treatment, and had a certificate mailed to Hong Kong from Colombia from a drug rehabilitation centre.  It says the defendant was receiving treatment for just over four months in early 2011.  From her letter, it seems that when she suffered setbacks in her life, she would involve herself in drugs.  In the antecedent confirmed today she told police she was addicted to ketamine.

10.Mr Arthur has also added to her letter and said all he can on her behalf.

11.There are guidelines for sentencing those who traffic cocaine.  It has been said the same guidelines apply for heroin as well as cocaine, and I am obliged to follow the guidelines of the authority R v Lau Tak Ming [1992] HKLR 370.  In that authority, where between 0 to 10 grammes is trafficked, that would attract a starting point of between 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment.  Mathematically speaking, 7½ grammes of cocaine should attract a starting point of 4 years and 3 months.

12.The guidelines in authorities assist the court in coming to an appropriate starting point, but mitigating or aggravating factors can either lower or add to an appropriate starting point.  No aggravating factors exist here that I can see.

13.I will pay due regard to what the defendant has said in her letter.  She does not elaborate why she came to Hong Kong seeking asylum, but the fact is she left her 10-year-old daughter in Colombia, so I hope her reasons are justified.

14.Defendant, please stand up.  I have taken into account the facts of the case, the drugs involved and the quantity of drugs, as well as the letter of remorse from the defendant, mitigation put forward, and the appropriate sentencing authority.

15.On Charge 1 I will take a starting point of 4 years.  On Charge 2 I take a starting point of 18 months.  That is to reflect the fact there were two types of drugs, albeit very small quantities in Charge 2.

16.The defendant is entitled to a discount of one‑third from the starting points for her plea.

17.After that deduction, for Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  For Charge 2, 1 year’s imprisonment.  Both sentences will be served concurrently. 

18.That is a sentence of 2 years and 8 months.  Do you understand that sentence?

Please refer to CACC180/2014 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.