COURT: D2 has pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one count of conspiracy to manufacture a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4 and section 6 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance respectively.
In the evening on 1 December 2020, customs officers intercepted D1 outside an apartment in Cheung Sha Wan. 144 grammes of cocaine was found on D1. Under caution, D1 told customs officers that he was delivering the cocaine in question.
Customs officers then entered the apartment where D2 was found to be present. D2 told customs officers that he was brought to the apartment by D1 to assist in packaging the dangerous drugs in question and that he would receive HK$2,000 as reward.
Upon further search of the apartment, 968.61 grammes of cocaine and various drug paraphernalia such as containers, electronic scales, sodium bicarbonate were found.
The government chemist confirmed that the chemicals and paraphernalia found from the apartment were items commonly used for making cocaine base.
Inside D1’s mobile telephone, photographs, videos and conversations found revealed that the two were in constant communication with each other concerning the process of manufacturing the cocaine. Inside D2’s mobile telephone photographs showing dangerous drug manufacturing process were also found.
D2 is now 27, single and received Form 6 education. He has a clear record. Prior to his arrest, he worked as a bartender allegedly. Given the circumstances where the 2nd defendant was caught, the two counts, the 1st and the 2nd counts could be considered to be one continuous event or transaction.
Guidelines on trafficking in 1,112 grammes of cocaine are clear. Based on quantity alone, the notional starting point would be one of just below 23 years’ imprisonment. However, D2 was not acting in this case simply as a courier. D2 was recruited by D1 to essentially assist in a manufacturing, packaging and distribution centre or operation. This, in my view, constitutes an aggravating factor in this case. The sentence will therefore be increased to one of 24 years’ imprisonment.
As for Count 3, no quantity had been mentioned in the particulars of the charge. The particulars indicate the period of the charge was between 15 October and 1 December, namely, a one and a half month period. In my view, the sentence on Count 3 could be subsumed into the sentences imposed on Count 1 and Count 2.
Mitigation letters have been produced to this court. They were written by the 2nd defendant’s brother and mother. They ask for leniency from this court. I understand their wish, however, my hands are tied by the guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal. The three counts of offence the defendant, D2, committed were serious offences.
As I say, the sentence on Count 3 could be subsumed into the sentences imposed on Count 1 and 2. So for Count 3, a starting point of 24 years will be adopted. D2, of course, will be given the usual one-third discount for his plea. As such the sentence on Count 3 will be reduced into one of 16 years.
Given the circumstances of this particular case, all sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Thus, for the three counts of offences D2 stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment.