CRIMINAL CASE NO. 251 OF 2009
All the charges arose from the same sting operation during which D2, first put in contact with PW1, the undercover agent, by someone else, supplied the latter with the drug ice on five occasions in two months. D3 was involved in two of these occasions in actually bringing the drug to PW1's presence. Other times, D2 had the drug ready at the appointed place of transaction. Under caution, D3 claimed to be D2's courier in return for free drugs.
By pure narcotic content, Count 1 to Count 5 concerned ice of the following quantities: 2.31 grammes, 5.07 grammes, 3.41 grammes, 7.78 grammes and 10.05 grammes respectively.
Turning to personal backgrounds, D2 is aged 25, born and educated up to form 4 in Hong Kong. He had had a variety of work until becoming unemployed in 2007. He admits to be a user of ice. He is single, lived with his girlfriend and has a baby daughter. He has one previous conviction for simple possession.
Born locally, D3 is aged 22. After leaving school at form 5, he also had a number of jobs before becoming unemployed in 2007. Like D2, he admits being a user of ice. He has no previous conviction.
In mitigation, counsel admits that for D2 the greatest factor in his favour is his plea of guilty. He does not try to persuade me that any significant portion of the drug found in Count 5 was for D2's own consumption, at least not to the extent that it may affect the sentence. For D3, counsel submits that he was but a courier for others.
In view of the quantities of the drug involved, the starting points for Count 1 to Count 5 should, in my view, be as follows: 3½ years, 4½ years, 4 years, 5½ years and 7 years respectively. Given the guilty pleas, they shall be discounted by one-third to 2 years 4 months, 3 years for Count 2, 2 years and 8 months for Count 3, 3 years and 8 months for Count 4 and 4 years and 8 months for Count 5.
Taking the totality principle into account, I am ordering two sets of consecutive sentences to be served concurrently; Count 1 and Count 2 on the one hand, and Count 3 and Count 4 on the other, giving a sub-total of 6 years and 4 months. Thereafter, 2 years of the term for Count 5 shall run concurrently to it and the rest shall be consecutive, thus making a composite sentence of 9 years. That, in my view, would just about reflect the criminality of D2's action and that is the sentence I pass on him; 9 years.
As regards D3, I believe a composite sentence of 6 years will for him be appropriate. Given the uncontested claim that he was just a courier at D2's beckoning, I will further reduce that by 12 months to 5 years. To achieve this result, I order 1 year and 8 months of the sentence for Count 4 to be served concurrently with that for Count 2. The rest will be consecutive; thus giving a final term of 5 years.
Finally, D1 pleaded guilty after his voir dire to Count 1, the only charge against him, with D2 named as a co-defendant. The facts were that he discussed drug prices with PW1 and referred him to D2 for the actual transaction.
Now 25, D1 was born in Hong Kong. He was educated up to form 5 level and had done a variety of work. He is single and lived with his parents. He has two previous convictions: resisting police and dangerous driving. In mitigation, there is little that can be said in his favour, except his guilty plea.
For Count 1, I can see no distinction in the roles that D1 and D2 played. So for D1, the same starting point of 3½ years applies. He did not, however, plead guilty until after his cautioned interview was admitted into evidence, so I will only give him a 25 per cent discount to bring it down to 2 years and 7 months. That is the sentence I pass on him.