CRIMINAL CASE NO. 168 OF 2009
COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity in the Magistrates’ Court for one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 135.21 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 131.17 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The 2nd count is for possession of dangerous drugs, namely, 2.65 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2.63 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and one tablet containing 4 milligrammes of diazepam.
The facts, all too common, is that the applicant was stopped, by Customs & Excise officers, carrying a shopping bag and inside the shopping bag was found to contain the drugs as indicated in Count 1. The defendant was arrested and cautioned and, under caution, the defendant admitted that the plastic bag contained “Ice” and he was delivering the “Ice” to someone.
A car key was found on him and it was to a private car which was parked opposite to where they were. Customs officers then brought the defendant to the car and, inside a metal box inside the glove compartment, they found the drug listed in Charge 2. Also found inside the same box was the inhaling apparatus. Under caution, the defendant admitted that these drugs belonged to him and that the drugs were “Ice”.
Subsequently, under a video-recorded interview, the defendant claimed that he was told to carry these drugs for reward. The car was rented by him and he had bought the “Ice” in Count 2 for $4,000 and they were for his own consumption.
The defendant is aged 33 and has some 16 previous convictions, six of which are drug-related. The last offence was in September 2001, when he was sentenced for two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug to a total of 10 years’ imprisonment. That was in the High Court.
As Mr Boyton correctly pointed out, there is hardly any mitigation apart from the fact that he had pleaded guilty. His background is not outstanding, apart from the fact that he and his girlfriend recently had a baby. The only mitigation is that he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
The guidelines as laid down by the Court of Appeal in the case of Ching Kwok Hung were that for trafficking in amounts of 70 to 300 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride would merit a sentence of between 10 to 14 years. Therefore, for the amount of drugs in Count 1, it would merit a sentence of 11 years.
As for the possession charge in Count 2, the amount is small and I would consider an 18-month starting point to be appropriate.
Having considered that he did plead guilty, I sentence the accused in the following manner. On Count 1, the starting point is 11 years’ imprisonment. Giving him a one-third discount for his plea, the sentence is 7 years 4 months.
On Count 2, 18 months will be reduced, for the same reason, to 12 months’ imprisonment.
Having considered the totality principle, I will sentence the defendant to, on the 1st count, 7 years 4 months’ imprisonment; on the 2nd count, 6 months of the 12 months will be consecutive to the 7 years 4 months for the 1st count, and the other 6 months will be concurrent.
So the defendant is sentenced to a total of 7 years 10 months' imprisonment.