COURT: Both defendants have pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one count of conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug. They are committed to this court for sentence.
Summary of Facts reveal the following:
On 21 January 2022, D1 was intercepted by police officers for suspecting selling dangerous drugs with a Filipino female in a building in Causeway Bay. She was taken to a room in South Pacific Hotel where she resided with her boyfriend, D2.
On entering the hotel room, D2 was found inside. A search was then conducted. Inside the hotel safe, police officers found 15.94 grammes of methamphetamine and an electronic scale.
The street value was estimated to be about HK$9,300.
Under caution, D1 stated that she had been selling ‘Ice’ to the Filipino female once a week for about two months at the instruction of D2. She was also responsible for collecting payments. Under caution, D2 stated that the ‘Ice’ found in the safe belonged to him and were for sale to others.
D1 is 48, divorced, educated up to Form 3 level. Prior to her arrest, she was unemployed. She has multiple criminal records involving dangerous drugs, three in particular relating to trafficking.
D2 is 37, divorced and educated up to Form 1 level. Prior to his arrest, he was also unemployed. He has five criminal records, one relating to claiming to be a member of triad society.
For Charge 1, guidelines on sentencing are clear. Starting point for trafficking in 15.94 grammes of methamphetamine is one of 7 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, that is 88 months. The sentence will be reduced to 58 months after a plea.
For Charge 2, D1 and D2 have been selling 12.25 grammes of ‘Ice’ that is 1.75 grammes times seven weeks to the Filipino female. This of course is hypothetical assuming the two defendants only had one customer. The starting point would be 7 years and 2 months. The sentence will be reduced to 56 months after a plea.
The starting point for trafficking in 28.19, that is 15.94 plus 12.25 of ‘Ice’ would be around 8 years and 2 months, that is 98 months’ imprisonment. The sentence will be reduced to 65 months after a plea without any aggravating or mitigating factors.
For D1, she has a number of criminal records with three similar. This in my view will significantly increase the criminality of the case. For that, an extra 12 months will be added to Charge 1. So again, after a plea, the extra 12 months will be reduced to 8 months.
Given the fact that D1 has been tested positive for methamphetamine in her urine sample, a 2 month reduction will be given for her self-consumption of a small part of the methamphetamine seized that day. So for Charge 1, the 1st defendant will receive a total of 64 months’ imprisonment, that is 58 plus 6.
As such, 7 months of Charge 2 that is 7 months out of the 56 months will be ordered to run consecutively to the 64 months imposed on Charge 1. So for the two offences that D1 stands convicted, she is sentenced to 71 months’ imprisonment.
For D2, although he has no similar drug-related criminal records in the past, he was not acting as a courier in the present case. He was in charge of a small retail operation of dangerous drugs. As such, an additional 12 months will be added to the starting point. That is in relation to Charge 1.
Likewise, the 12 months reduced to 8 months for his role. Similar to D1, an additional 2 months will be given for his self-consumption. As such, D2 will receive exactly the same imprisonment term as D1.
For the two offences D2 stands convicted, he is, likewise, sentenced to 71 months’ imprisonment. That is 64 months for Charge 1 and 7 months consecutive to Charge 1 for Charge 2.