|
DCCC 1023/2024
[2026] HKDC 135
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1023 OF 2024
____________
____________
| Before : |
H.H. Judge G. Lam |
| Present : |
Mr. Boey Chung, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR. |
|
Mr. William Hui instructed by M/s Huen & Partners, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant. |
| Offence : |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug（販運危險藥物） |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Trafficking in a dangerous drug". The dangerous drug involved is methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as "ICE").
Summary of Facts
2. About 11:55 p.m. on 17 May 2024, police officers stopped the defendant for enquiry outside No.460 Shanghai Street, Mongkok. Upon search, in the defendant's coin purse, 5 transparent plastic bags which contained a total of 9.80 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 9.74 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride were found.
3. Under caution, the defendant admitted possession of the ICE found on her. She claimed to have purchased the drug for $3,200 for self-consumption. The quantity could last her a week. She now admits possession of the ICE for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
Mitigation & Sentence
4. The defendant is 30 and single. She has 5 conviction records which included 3 "gambling" offences and 27 "theft" offences. Defence counsel Mr. Hui informed me that prior to her arrest, the defendant was a salesperson earning about $20,000 per month. She resides with her mother. In mitigation, Mr. Hui submitted that on the evening in question, the defendant was on her way to meet up with 2 female friends in a room at Hotel MK on Changsha Street, Mongkok. She received her pay that day and purchased the ICE to treat her friends. The defendant intended to share one bag of ICE with her friends. The 2 friends told the defendant that ICE could help with her weight loss.
5. Drug abuse has always been a problem in our society. A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that "drug trafficking" (even "sharing" drugs with friends) is a serious crime and that drug traffickers would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has on numerous occasions stressed that there is no difference between "social trafficking" and "commercial trafficking" in terms of sentencing[1]. "The 'friend' who starts off or perpetuates another's abuse of drugs, is as dangerous to the community as the commercial supplier of small quantities, who will generally traffic in drugs with those already addicted[2]."
6. The Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ICE (see HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691). For up to 10 grammes of ICE, the sentence ranges from 3 to 7 years' imprisonment[3].
7. Regarding the defendant's claim for self-consumption, I have reminded myself of the relevant sentencing principles[4]. Prosecuting counsel Mr. Boey objected to the defendant's claim entirely. He submitted that there is simply no evidence, none at all, to support the defendant's assertion of meeting up with 2 friends in a hotel room and treating them to ICE.
8. The defendant's urine test report (sample taken roughly 32 hours after her arrest) showed amphetamine positive. In other words, she could be an ICE user and that a portion of the ICE found on her could be for her own consumption. The question is how much. I am aware that a drug-user may well be a trafficker. I have looked at the photograph of the 5 bags of ICE[5]. Based on their appearance, the quantity of ICE contained in each bag was more or less the same. In other words, their sizes neither support nor weaken the likelihood of self-consumption.
9. Whilst the defendant's story of meeting up with her friends is a mere assertion, the prosecution has no evidence to rebut it either. On the other hand, upon taking further instructions on the spot, Mr. Hui was able to provide the name and address of the hotel, which, according to him, was just
100 metres away from the location of "stop and search". Having balanced all factors, I give the benefit of doubt to the defendant, but would not go so far as accepting that 4 out of 5 bags of ICE were intended for self-consumption.
10. The defendant trafficked in 9.74 grammes of ICE. Applying a strict arithmetical approach, the appropriate starting point is 82 months' imprisonment. For ease of calculation, I adopt 81 months as the starting point. I will grant a discount of 9 months[6] for self-consumption, reducing the starting point to 72 months[7]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 48 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 48 months' imprisonment.
[1] HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau [2002] 1 HKLRD 69; HKSAR v Wong Sze Tung [2015] 4 HKLRD 836; and SJ v Chan Suet Ping [2018] 1 HKLRD 305.
[2] Wong Suet Hau (supra), paragraph 51, p.85.
[3] The present case predates HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.
[4] See HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang [2012] 2 HKLRD 1121; Wong Suet Hau (supra); and HKSAR v Cheuk Kin Man CACC 294/2009 (English translation).
[5] Photo 5 in the album.
[6] A 11.11% discount of the 81-month starting point.
[7] In Chow Chun Sang (supra), Yeung VP held "…when all or part of the drugs are intended for the trafficker’s own consumption, the ensuing discount to sentence should, depending on circumstances, fall somewhere between 10% and 25% of the basic starting point. In determining the extent of discount in a particular case, the court should have regard to factors including the total quantities of the drugs involved, proportion of the drugs intended for self-use, the nature of the drugs, whether the drug trafficking was for financial gain…" (para.19, p.1126) In HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817, Zervos JA held "We should point out that a sentencing court, in any event, has a discretion to discount a sentence to reflect an element of self-consumption." (para.50, p.829)
|