The facts of the case is that he was intercepted sometime after 10 pm outside the flat in which he lived, and he was in possession of keys which opened the door to the flat, and the flat was subdivided into 10 rooms and he was living in Room 3. Entry was gained by using one of the keys seized from the defendant and also the defendant revealed his password to the police officers who then entered the room.
Inside the room were found the drugs which is the subject matter of the charge, an electronic scale, a lighter and also transparent resealable plastic bags and trimmed plastic sheets.
The total value of the drugs was about HK$245,089.
The defendant in a video-recorded interview said he was unemployed and that the money seized from him was from his previous job as a delivery worker. He was found to have HK$7,660 cash on him, and the defendant claimed that he had bought the drugs in three separate lots.
The defendant is aged 42 and has a poor record. He has 24 previous convictions, 12 of which are drug-related. The second last conviction in 2012 was for trafficking in dangerous drugs for which he was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment.
In mitigation, Ms Wong has said everything she could possibly say on behalf of the defendant. The main mitigating ground is that he did plead guilty at the earliest opportunity in the Magistrates’ Court, thus showing his remorse.
Ms Wong submits that he is not the mastermind and he was only acting on instruction to deliver the drug and that he committed the offence out of financial difficulty and that he hopes for a lenient sentence because he hopes to see his father as soon as possible as his father, having physical disabilities, finds it difficult to visit him in prison.
As Ms Wong correctly pointed out, the guideline of the Court of Appeal in relation to trafficking in heroin hydrochloride is in R v Lau Tak Ming, and in that case, the Court of Appeal recommended that for trafficking in between 50 to 200 grammes, the reasonable sentence would be from 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment.
Now, this case, the amount of drugs is 199.72 grammes, which Ms Wong had worked out mathematically to 143.9 months as a starting point reduced by one-third would give us 95.9 months of imprisonment, which is 7 years and 11 months. Ms Wong has submitted that he should not be regarded as a recidivist as he only has one previous for trafficking in 2012.
Now, the fact of the matter is that even if I do not regard him as a recidivist, nevertheless it was clear that the last sentence he received for trafficking in 2012 did not deter him from committing the offence again. The guideline sentence are guideline sentence and it is not meant to be worked to a mathematical conclusion.
Each case has to be looked at on its own facts. The fact of the case is that it was -- the defendant, although he said he was under instructions to deliver the goods, he nevertheless was found to have in his room electronic scale, transparent resealable plastic bags and trimmed plastic sheets. So it would appear that he was doing a little more than just delivering drugs. So -- I do accept, however, that he falls within the 8 to 12 years’ guidelines, and for the amount that he is charged with, I would adopt a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment and I would give him the full one-third discount for his plea, and so the sentence will be reduced to one of 8 years’ imprisonment.
So the defendant is sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.