CRIMINAL CASE NO. 147 OF 2011
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty at committal on 29 April 2011 to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The dangerous drug was 70.08 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 70 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defendant confirmed his plea of guilty before me today and confirmed also the facts that he had admitted at committal.
Those facts show that the defendant was stopped and searched by police officers as he returned to his rooftop dwelling. As he arrived on the rooftop, the officers noticed that he appeared nervous and was shaking. He was told that he was going to be searched for dangerous drugs. In the front left pocket of his jeans was found one quantity of three packets of a crystalline substance and another bag containing 19 small resealable plastic bags and one electronic scale.
The defendant was arrested and cautioned and said, “Ah Sir, the “ice” is mine. I bought it for my own consumption. Give me a chance.” The accused was shown a search warrant for the rooftop premises, but a search of the premises revealed nothing else suspicious. Later, the defendant was interviewed under caution. He said he bought the drugs from a man called “Ah Shing” whom he had known for about a year, for $16,000. He said he had bought in bulk for his own consumption because that would be cheaper and he told police that his daily consumption was one packet, about 3 grammes. He said the drugs that he had would last about 20 days.
The defendant had met Ah Shing on 7 December 2010; that is the day of his arrest. He left the purchase money in a public toilet for collection by an employee of Ah Shing. Later, the defendant collected the drugs from the toilet after being shown the location by an employee of Ah Shing. The defendant planned to divide and seal the drugs in small plastic bags to keep them dry and intended to hide them in different places. He said he had the scales with him so that he could weigh the drugs and avoid being cheated.
The crystalline substances were later analysed by the Government Chemist and found to be of the type and quantity set out in the particulars of the charge. The retail value of the drugs at that time was $56,502. The defendant admitted that he unlawfully trafficked in the drugs at all material times.
The defendant has a criminal record starting in 1986, with comparatively minor offences until 2010. In 2010 he was sent to DATC for three convictions relating to possession of dangerous drugs and possession of part 1 poisons. I am advised that he was released from Drug Addiction Treatment Centre on 12 October 2010 and was still under supervision by CSD officers until November 2011.
The defendant is now aged 52. He has been working in casual employment earning between $10,000 to $14,000 a month. He has a wife and sons whom he has seen on a fairly irregular basis. Since he left his sons in 1991 he has been residing alone at the premises where he was arrested. I am advised that there has been some resurrection of the marital association since he has been in prison.
The only mitigation in this case is the accused’s plea of guilty, for which I accept he is entitled to the full one‑third discount. I consider the sentence in relation to the guidelines set out in Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung(1991) 2HKLR 125. The narcotic quantity of 70 to 300 grammes is in the range of 10 to 14 years’ imprisonment and, as I say, there is no mitigation in this case which is of any value, except the plea of guilty. There is a suggestion that some of this drug would have been used by the defendant himself and I am prepared to make a slight adjustment to the starting point for sentence for that reason.
I take a starting point of 9 years’ imprisonment. I discount that by one-third and sentence the defendant to 6 years’ imprisonment.