CRIMINAL CASE NO. 380 OF 2010
COURT: Mr Pang Wing-chuen, you may remain seated.
You have pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity - that is, at the Magistrates’ Court - to three charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs.
What is clear from the facts which you have admitted is that you kept a horde of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “Ice”, and ketamine at premises on the 2nd floor of a building in Lai Chi Kok Road, from which, on 3 June this year, you were making a delivery of smaller quantities of both drugs to a customer when you were arrested outside the ground floor of those premises.
The horde of “Ice” and ketamine in the premises is set out respectively in Charges 2 and 3. The drugs you were delivering to your customer are comprised in Charge 1.
Your counsel, Mr Allman-Brown, has made a very full plea in mitigation on your behalf, explaining how you came to be involved in this business and the extent of that involvement. What he has said is borne out, to some extent, by your criminal record, which shows that your drug offences only began in 2007, when, at the age of 42 or 43, you became addicted to drugs, and indeed all your previous appearances before the courts for drugs offences are for possession and not for trafficking.
Whilst he realistically accepts that you were trafficking in the drugs concerned, I am prepared to bear in mind in addressing overall quantum that some of the “Ice” was for your own consumption. That is what you told the police, and your record bears it out.
However, the bulk of the quantity of “Ice” and all of the ketamine must have been for trafficking. I note that there were found in the premises an electronic scale, which you accept was used to weigh the drugs, and numerous small resealable plastic bags, which you accept were used to pack “Ice”.
The overall quantities were substantial, and you were arrested whilst in the process of making a delivery of both drugs.
The question which I must engage, and which sometimes troubles the courts, is the starting point where two different drugs are being trafficked in substantial quantities.
Your counsel has taken me to the recent case of HKSAR v Wong Kin Kau Cr. App. 269/2009, and whilst I do not believe it is a guideline case in itself, it does illustrate and deal with the difficulties which are sometimes met in sentencing for two different kinds of drugs in substantial quantities.
In relation to Charge 1, there were 2.69 grammes of ketamine and 6.81 grammes of “Ice”. In my view, the overall starting point for the two types of drugs concerned, bearing in mind that you were making an actual delivery when stopped, would be 5 years’ imprisonment. In relation to Charge 2, in which there are, for sentencing purposes, 22.34 grammes of “Ice”, the starting point would be 7½ years’ imprisonment. In relation to Charge 3, there are, for sentencing purposes, 127.32 grammes of ketamine. The appropriate starting point would, in my judgment, be 7 years.
Accordingly, the starting points in respect of Charges 1, 2 and 3 are 5 years, 7½ years, and 7 years imprisionment respectively.
I give you a full one-third discount for your pleas of guilty entered at the first available opportunity, and discount your sentences accordingly on Count 1 to 3 years 4 months’ imprisonment; on Count 2, 5 years’ imprisonment; and Count 3, 4 years 8 months’ imprisonment.
There are various ways, having identified the relevant sentences after plea for each charge, that I can proceed. What I must ensure is that by making any sentences consecutive or partly consecutive, I do not arrive at an unjustified resulting sentence suggestive of too high an accumulated starting point.
The more serious of the three offences are Charges 2 and 3.
I propose to make 1 year of the sentence on Charge 3 consecutive to the sentence on Charge 2, the remainder being concurrent.
The result will be 5 years’ imprisonment on Charge 2, with 1 year consecutive on Charge 3, making 6 years’ imprisonment.
I have considered whether part of Charge 1 should be made consecutive, or partly consecutive and partly concurrent, to the sentence of 6 years. I believe it could be, since it was a delivery of dangerous drugs and a separate offence, but bearing in mind the overall sentence appropriate to the circumstances of this case, the fact that the quantity is significantly less and comes from the horde of drugs in Charges 2 and 3, I believe that 6 years is the correct overall sentence.
I shall make the whole of the sentence on Charge 1 concurrent with the sentences on Charges 2 and 3.
The overall sentence of imprisonment which I impose upon you, therefore, is one of 6 years’ imprisonment.
To check my approach, I look back at the sentence to see if I have, allowing for the one-third discount, adopted an overall starting point which would have been too high. In my view, the overall starting point of 9 years’ imprisonment is appropriate in this case, given the quantities of each drug concerned and your role in the offences, and the fact I mentioned earlier that some of the “Ice”, but not so much as to make a significant difference, was for your own consumption.
The sentence of the court is 6 years’ imprisonment.