COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug before a magistrate on 22 April this year and he admitted the Summary of Facts in support.
According to the Summary of Facts, on 4 May 2023 at around 10.05 pm, he was intercepted by the police at the junction of Ming Yuen Western Street and King’s Road in North Point with two transparent resealable plastic bags containing 31.05 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 31.05 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’, concealed inside his underpants. At the same time, he also had three mobile phones and cash of HK$6,778.80 with him.
He stated under caution that the drug was for his own consumption and that he said that he would consume the ‘Ice’ at home with equipment such as a bottle.
The total estimated street value of the ‘Ice’ seized from him was around HK$19,406.
He now accepts and admits that at all material times, he knowingly possessed all subject dangerous drug seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
The defendant was aged 50 years old when he committed the offence and he is now 52 years old. According to his antecedents statement, he worked as a construction worker before his arrest and he had received education up to Primary 6 level. I was informed by counsel that prior to his arrest, he resided together with his family members including his daughter, elder sister, and his parents.
The defendant also has a total of 20 sets of criminal records for various offences, altogether 42 different offences including 10 offences for the possession of dangerous drug. His last conviction was on 10 August 2022 whereupon he was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment for the offence of possession of dangerous drug. He was discharged from prison on 26 September 2022, that is about seven months before he committed the present offence.
Counsel submitted that the defendant had the habit of taking ‘Ice’ or misuse of ‘Ice’. Also counsel urged this court to take into account the fact that a small part of the quantity of ‘Ice’ being seized in this case was for his own consumption. To that regard, counsel relied on the urine test report prepared upon his admission to the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre, showing that he was tested positive for the drug of ‘Ice’ in a screening test for sample taken on 6 May 2023, and also what he said to the police under caution as well as his 10 previous convictions for possession of dangerous drug.
Counsel, however, agreed that only 3.25 grammes of the seized drug was for self-consumption and that the amount involved was not significant enough to justify any meaningful discount of sentence.
In his submission, counsel also urged this court to take into account the fact that he was indeed acting as a courier in this case. On that particular occasion he was going to buy some drug from his supplier in Mong Kok after work. The trafficker asked him to help delivering the larger bag of ‘Ice’ to another person in North Point, and as a result he would be given the smaller bag of ‘Ice’ (that is the 3.25 grammes of ‘Ice’) as a reward, so he foolishly agreed. But before he could deliver the large bag of ‘Ice’ to somebody in North Point he was intercepted by police.
Counsel rightly accepted that the only mitigating factor would be his guilty plea at the very first opportunity, thereby he should be entitled to the full one-third discount.
In sentencing the defendant, I take into account the approach stipulated by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and as clarified in the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
According to the authority of HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, for 31.05 grammes of ‘Ice’ narcotic the starting point mathematically should be one of about 8 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. In this particular case, I accept counsel’s mitigation that his role was one of being a courier. For people like a courier or storekeeper at the lower bottom of the drug trafficking hierarchy, the mathematical starting point would be appropriate. So I would adopt 8 years and 5 months’ imprisonment after taking into account his role as a courier in this case.
However, as I stated earlier he has an appalling record. He has a total of 20 sets of criminal convictions involving 40 different offences including 10 offences of possession of dangerous drug. Indeed he was only discharged from prison about seven months before he committed the present offence which is more serious in nature. Bearing in mind the large number of drug related offences, I consider that it should be treated as an aggravating feature. For that reason I would increase the starting point by a total of 7 months’ imprisonment. Therefore the notional sentence to be imposed after trial should be 9 years’ imprisonment.
The defendant pleaded guilty at a very early opportunity and he is entitled to the full one-third discount. As such he is sentenced to a total of 6 years’ imprisonment for the offence.