COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and one count of manufacturing dangerous drugs, contrary to section 6 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
In the afternoon on 2 November 2021, the defendant was intercepted by police officers in Tai Po. 1.18 grammes of cocaine was found in a plastic bag which the defendant was carrying at the time. Using a key found on the defendant, he was taken back to his residence for a house search.
Inside the apartment, 505.7 grammes of ketamine and 2,668.33 grammes of cocaine was found. In addition, manufacturing equipment and chemicals such as sodium bicarbonate, beaker, electronic scale, cutter, spoon, tray, filter, sealing machine, sieve and resealable bags were also found.
Under caution, the defendant admitted that as he had lost over 2 million in gambling, he took up the job of manufacturing dangerous drugs through a friend’s introduction. He would be given HK$20,000 for every 1,000 grammes of cocaine produced.
The street value of all the dangerous drugs in question was estimated to be around HK$5.8 million.
The defendant is 31, married, educated up to Form 5 level. Prior to his arrest, he was unemployed. He also has two criminal records involving three offences but none related to dangerous drugs.
In respect of the 1st count, given the small amount of cocaine involved, a notional starting point of 18 months would be adopted. The sentence will be reduced to one of 12 months for the defendant’s plea.
In respect of Count 2, counsel from both sides have kindly agreed that the notional starting point for trafficking in the two dangerous drugs in question under various tests is one between 292 months and 301 months’ imprisonment.
As two dangerous drugs were involved, an additional 2 months will be added. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the defendant, 294 months will be adopted as the starting point for Count 2. On a plea, the sentence would be reduced to one of 196 months’ imprisonment.
In respect of Count 3, it was submitted by Mr Leung that one could readily see that the defendant was new to the drug trade and he was not the mastermind behind the operation. Further, Mr Leung submitted that the operation was not on a large scale, involving just one employee.
Further, he also submitted that the period of operation was confined to two months. Given the quantity of drugs involved, in my view, a starting point of 27 years may be appropriate. Essentially, it would be an extra 2.5 years for handling all the drugs in question.
The defendant of course will be given the full one-third discount for his plea. As such, for Count 3, the defendant is sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. In light of all the facts and circumstances of the case, all three sentences are ordered to run concurrently to each other.
In conclusion, for the three counts that the defendant stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to a term of 18 years’ imprisonment.