COURT: The defendant is charged with two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug. She pleaded guilty to the lesser alternative of possession in respect of Count 1 and also the full trafficking charge in respect of Count 2.
The facts of the case were simple. She was stopped on the street and was found to be in possession of two packets of “Ice”, weighing a total of 0.8 grammes by pure narcotic content. That is Count 1.
In a search of her flat nearby a further three packets of “Ice” were found weighing 52.02 grammes in total. Also discovered were such trafficking paraphernalia as an electronic scale and a pile of resealable plastic bags. That is Count 2.
The defendant is aged 38. She was born in Hong Kong and was in school up until Form 5. She was unemployed and was living with her boyfriend at the time of the offence. She has seven previous convictions, five of them were for possession of dangerous drugs.
In mitigation counsel suggests that some half of the drug in the flat was for the defendant’s own consumption. It is also said that she is a regular and longstanding donor to charitable organisations.
For Count 1, the appropriate starting point is, in my judgment, one of 10 months. Given the fact that the drug existed in two packets there was a latent risk of trafficking which necessitates an enhancement of 2 months to one year, then to be reduced by the guilty plea to 8 months.
For Count 2, I will adopt a starting point of 9 years, to be reduced by one-third to 6 years, but that is the only reduction permissible for although I accept that part of this drug was for self-consumption, the overwhelming bulk of it I am satisfied must be for trafficking. The fact that there were no smoking paraphernalia found in the flat is most telling.
I also note the defendant was unemployed. It does not sit comfortably with the large amount of cash found on her, $8,820 in all, that is the money on her, and in the flat $11,600 in total. The suggestion that it all came from the boyfriend or that they were lucky number notes defies belief.
In the final analysis, whatever she set aside for her own use would be like the supplies that a grocer sets aside for his family. It could only be insignificant in the general scheme of things.
Everything in the case smells of such an arrangement.
As regards the composite sentence, I am prepared to accept that all the drugs came from the same pool so completely concurrent terms would be sufficient to meet the defendant’s culpability in this case.
The defendant will go to prison for a total of 6 years.