COURT: You have pleaded guilty to the alternative charge laid by the prosecution, that of possession of 105.62 grammes of solid, containing 101.39 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as “ice”.
Briefly, the facts you admitted to are as follows:
On 12 December last, police officers observed a male open the door to Room 8, Flat A, 5th Floor, Dundas Street, Mong Kok. At around 12:39 hours they intercepted him and gained access to the small room. It comprised a small bedroom and a toilet. Present therein were three males and yourself.
Next to your thigh on the bed was a transparent bag containing nine plastic bags of suspected dangerous drugs, another plastic bag containing a further 10 plastic bags of suspected dangerous drugs, electronic scales and a plastic bag containing scissors, pen and a bag containing empty plastic bags.
You were arrested and cautioned at 12:40 hours. The dangerous drugs, I have been told, have a street value of about $45,522.
You had been residing at those premises since the 10th of that month. You admitted the possession of dangerous drugs. It appears that you have a previous offence for which you were fined, but as there is no formal record, I am treating you as a person of clear record.
A DATC report, which I ordered to be prepared, both considered you to be suitable for such treatment and recommended an order. The antecedent statement is accepted and this tells me that you are 26, educated to Diploma level but unemployed. You are addicted to “ice”.
Mr Haynes proceeded to enter mitigation on your behalf. He stressed your plea of guilty to possession of just over 100 grammes of “ice” however he said it was an unusual case because the “ice” had been purchased by one of the three men in the room, that is, Mr Chau, for $10,000. The intention was it should be shared, so it is difficult to apportion between the four of you.
He mentioned that both Mr Chau and your brother have criminal records. Mr Chau’s record was particularly lengthy, including five drug-related matters and miscellaneous other matters. He told me that you had effectively abandoned your family some 6 or 7 months prior to the offence, leaving behind your young son and your husband. Your son is being cared for by your mother, both of whom have come to court. Effectively what you have done is render yourself homeless, relying on your older boyfriend, Chau, for support. To a large extent, you were a victim used by Chau for his own ends.
Mr Haynes said his first intention was to try to persuade me to follow the recommendation for a DATC order. This was based on the fact that you had suffered 10 months’ incarceration on remand. However, you yourself, did not wish to go to DATC, being fearful of being drawn into further drug abuse by the inmates. Whilst that is not your choice, it is the choice of the court, I do respect your views. You prefer conventional prison.
Mr Haynes also referred me to letters written by your family and yourself. He submitted the concept of latent risk did not apply because the 100 grammes was, in fact, a shared cache of “ice”. With respect, I disagree with that and I will explain why later. He suggested a starting point between 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment. He recognises that this is a difficult case to sentence, and I accept that.
Having decided the voir dire proceedings this led to the laying of the charge of simple possession, and the dismissing of the charge of trafficking, I do have an appreciation of the facts and circumstances beyond what are presented as the Brief Facts. I am prepared to accept that the 100 grammes of “ice” was, in fact, a cache, probably owned by all four of you and that effectively, you had shouldered the blame for the whole amount. These are strange circumstances, however the prosecution have elected to accept the charge of simple possession and despite the technicalities, I think that is a very sensible course to take.
Now, I do accept your desire to reform and to be reunited with your family, especially your son and husband, to be genuine. I accept that, to a large extent, you were used and abused to some extent by the older man, Chau, who became your boyfriend. That Chau had misled you over many things, and in the final analysis, left you in the lurch.
As I said at the outset, I do treat you as clear record and deem you also to be entitled to the full one-third discount on the basis of your plea of guilty. Against the positive side, I have to weigh that you are an adult and a lady of reasonably good education. That you yourself chose this path, you chose to abandon your family and must accept the consequences of what flows there from.
You too, properly accept the possession of a substantial quantity of dangerous drugs. Whilst I do perceive it as a joint stash, with such a quantity the concept of latent risk must certainly apply here. Indeed, it was planned that part of that cache would be in the hands of others and it cannot be discounted that part of that cache could have gone outside that room.
I note your preference for a conventional prison and I agree with that. I deem this too serious for DATC, even taking into account the 10 months’ imprisonment you will have served, or 11 months now, I believe. Therefore I note your clear record, your remorse, which I feel to be genuine and, of course, your plea of guilty to the lesser charge.
I am taking what I believe to be a merciful course, in all the circumstances. The starting point I adopt is one of 24 months’ imprisonment. This will be increased by 6 months for the concept of latent risk to 30 months. And to acknowledge your plea of guilty, you get the full one-third discount. Therefore you will go to prison for 20 months.