CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2 OF 2010
COURT: On 8 September of 2009, the defendant was intercepted by Customs officers at Lok Ma Chau Control Point after crossing into Hong Kong from the mainland.
He was found to have the drugs the subject of the charge hidden under his clothing.
Those drugs amounted to 26.18 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defendant pleaded guilty before me to the offence of trafficking in those drugs.
Given the quantity and type of drug involved, I take a starting point of sentence of 7 years 6 months’ imprisonment. That starting point is enhanced to 8 years’ imprisonment to reflect the factor of the importation of the drugs into Hong Kong. I do not think that enhancement has any element of double jeopardy. The importation of drugs into Hong Kong is considered in our case law to be a more culpable form of trafficking than possession for the purposes of trafficking.
The primary mitigation available to the defendant is his plea of guilty. However, another point arises. The defendant, when arrested, said that the drugs were for his own consumption. Mr Pang, for the defendant, relying on HKSAR v Chong Chee Meng (2008) 6 HKC 407, HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau (2002) 1 HKLRD 69, and HKSAR v Chong Heung Sang CACC221/2009, asserts that some further reduction in the starting point of sentence should be made to reflect the fact of intended partial self-consumption.
While I have reservations as to whether any part of the drugs were for the defendant’s own consumption, given his prior history of trafficking offences and lack of conviction for simple possession, his arrest with these drugs after travelling into Hong Kong from Shenzhen, where he lived, according to his antecedents statement, and there being no paraphernalia suitable for consumption being found in respect of this case, and that only $200 was found in his possession when he was arrested, nevertheless I take into account a toxicological report provided to me which suggests the defendant had previously consumed “Ice”.
I am satisfied the defendant has established that part of the drugs were for his own consumption. In my view, however, given the circumstances I have mentioned, only a minor part of the drugs were for his own consumption.
That, together with the other matters put before me in mitigation, including his plea of guilty, reduces his sentence from the starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment to one of 4 years 4 months’ imprisonment.