CRIMINAL CASE NO. 391 OF 2011
COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 45 grammes of “Ice” by pure narcotic content.
He was found possessing the drug when stopped and searched by police on the street.
The defendant is aged 38, Hong Kong born, and educated up to Junior Secondary level. He has three previous convictions, none of which is similar to the present case. Otherwise his background is unremarkable.
In mitigation counsel submits that a “significant portion” of the drug involved was for the defendant’s own consumption. The rest is for “social trafficking”; that is, sharing with his one colleague who introduced him to purchasing the drug in question in bulk for a better price.
I find this submission to be completely unbelievable. I fail to see why anyone, having spent a month and a half’s worth of his salary, should be so generous. Even by the defence’s own version, the drug was worth $20,000, whereas he was earning only $10,000 to $15,000 a month.
I also find it incredible that having bought the drug and carrying it in his shoulder bag, the defendant would allegedly take the leisure of first having dinner with this colleague-introducer of his, and then wait for his girlfriend outside a video games centre. The risk of being caught and charged for trafficking is simply too high for anyone to have taken that laid-back attitude.
Finally, it is common ground that the police found no smoking paraphernalia in the defendant’s home. The explanation that the defendant got rid of everything after each consumption and/or took his drug elsewhere, away from home, to consume so as not to worry his mother is again completely unrealistic.
For this case I will adopt a starting point of 8½ years. Given the guilty plea, it shall be reduced by one‑third to 5 years and 8 months.
There being no other mitigating factor, that is the sentence I pass on the defendant.