HKSAR v. Lam Oi Ling
|
DCCC 814/2014 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 814 OF 2014 ----------------------
--------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the particulars being 7.64 grammes of a solid which contained 7.60 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, so that is a total of 7.60 grammes of the drug. 2.The defendant has made full admission to the facts and I convicted her accordingly. 3.The offence occurred on 22 June this year when Police were conducting an operation in Mongkok and the defendant was found walking out of a flat carrying a bag. She was taken back into the room and the bag was searched and found to contain the drug outlined in the charge, a further 62 smaller resealable plastic bags and an electronic scale. 4.Defendant made a verbal admission at the scene, essentially saying she was helping someone to carry the dangerous drugs which was Ice. Eventually she made a further video-recorded interview in which she admitted she knew the drugs were Ice. She had been offered $500 if she delivered the drugs for him and then been given the drugs containing the smaller plastic bags and electronic scale saying her intention at that time was to deliver the drugs to other people and she never received the $500. 5.The value of the drugs was $4,355 at the time. 6.The defendant’s antecedents are admitted. She has a previous conviction in 2006 for trafficking in a dangerous drug with a sentence of 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. 7.As far as the defendant’s background is concerned, I have obtained fairly extensive reports on her, a background report, psychological report and psychiatric report. It was evident from the mitigation that she has difficulties both psychological and psychiatric and they have lead to her addiction to drugs and have perpetuated it. The background report is of some interest. She is aged 29, she has been married before and is now divorced. She is said to have grown up in a simple working class family, mixed with what are described as “dubious peers” and used dangerous drugs in her early teens, had a loose life pattern. She had quit from drugs in the last imprisonment but relaxed on release. She has failed to maintain stable employment, has formed relationships with drug abusers and drug dealers. She wants to move home after her release from this imprisonment. 8.The medical reports, there are first we have a psychiatric report. The conclusion is quite clear, she is suffering from schizophrenia with a differential diagnosis of amphetamine-induced psychosis and amphetamine misuse. She is mentally stable on observation. Psychiatric in-patient is not required but she needs continuing out-patient management for her condition. 9.As far as the psychological report is concerned, that is quite extensive. She is described as person with low esteem, heightened sensitivity to social rejection, she copes with this with drug abuse further worsening her problems. It says psychological intervention is recommended. She is willing to accept those services. It says she needs or requires medication to manage her substance-induced psychotic symptoms. So it would appear the defendant is in need of some further medication and what she appears to do is when she is released is medicate herself with dangerous drugs which has led into these kind of problems. 10.In her mitigation she says that she is a self-consumer of drugs which is absolutely obvious from the background reports and also from a medical report when she was received into custody, she had drugs in her system at the time. She says that she bought the drugs and was consuming them herself and also sharing them with friends whom she sold them to. This differs from what she told the Police at the time but is supported by the medical evidence at the time of arrest and also the background reports I have had on her so I am prepared to accept that she was a consumer of the drug and would have consumed some of these drugs. 11.Now I turn to the sentence. The sentence for offences of this kind are clearly governed by the guideline sentencing and we are all aware of that, I am sure the defendant herself is aware of the guideline. She falls within the quantity of up to 10 grammes of the drug methamphetamine hydrochloride which puts her in the range of 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment. She would be towards the higher end of that range with the 7.60 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride if the calculation of the sentence is only dependant on quantity. I assume that giving a range of sentencing allows that sentence or the determination of that sentence to bring in other factors besides simply the quantity. 12.Now what other factors are there in this case? Firstly, there is the defendant’s condition and I will describe it as a medical condition. She suffers from schizophrenia, that puts her into a somewhat unusual category. She is a person who requires further psychological treatment and further medication as a result of that treatment. So her addiction to drugs is not simply a result of venality, it is also as a result of her medical problems and I think that can be reflected in calculating the starting point for sentence in relation to this offence. 13.Also, in calculating the starting point one would also bear in mind that she is a self-consumer of the drugs and at least a part of the drugs would have been for her own self‑consumption. Authorities suggest that that can result in a reduction of between 10 to 25 per cent of the sentence when taking that into consideration. And finally, when I have a figure from those deductions, there will be a reduction of one‑third from that sentence for her plea of guilty. 14.Having regard to the quantity and then tempering that by her medical condition and the reason for becoming involved in drug trafficking, I am going to take a starting point for sentence calculated in months at 63 months’ imprisonment. Further, there will then be a deduction for the element of self‑consumption. I have rounded that to a figure of 12 months giving a deduction of 12 months leading to a figure of 51 months’ imprisonment as being the starting point for calculation of the one-third discount. That leads to a further 17 months deduction for the one-third discount leaving a final sentence of 34 months’ imprisonment. 15.That will be the sentence I will impose, 34 months’ imprisonment.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||