The facts of the offences were that police officers in the course of investigating another drug-related case not involving the defendant came to know of a particular mobile telephone number. A police officer rang that telephone number using a mobile telephone seized from the suspect in that other case and it was answered by the defendant who asked the officer whether he wanted anything. The officer replied in the negative and the defendant told him to ring again if necessary.
The next day the officer called the number, using the same telephone, and the defendant again answered and asked what quantity he needed. The officer replied, “The same as before”, and the defendant replied, “2 pellets of ‘Ice’ and I will call you when they are ready.”
Later that evening, the defendant called back and an arrangement was made to meet at a location in Tuen Mun. Police went to the scene and kept it under observation. Eventually, a BMW motor car arrived and the police officer who had made the earlier telephone calls received another call from the defendant asking where he was. The officer replied he was on his way.
The defendant then got out of the BMW and placed the drugs the subject of the trafficking charge under a nearby bicycle seat. After another phone call, during which the defendant was seen talking on his mobile phone, the defendant got back into the BMW motor car. He was then intercepted and arrested by the police.
He was searched and $65,660 was found inside his shoulder bag, and $4,120 together with RMB1,000 inside his wallet. His mobile telephone was seized. Its number matched the number contacted earlier by the police officer. The drugs under the bicycle seat were seized.
After the defendant’s arrest, he was taken for a home search and the drugs the subject of the possession charge were found in his living room together with drug packaging paraphernalia.
So far as the trafficking offence is concerned, bearing in mind the guidelines set down in Ching Kwong Hung, I take a starting point of sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment.
There is no mitigation apart from the defendant’s plea of guilty. Though late, after hearing from counsel of the reasons for the defendant’s late plea, I give him full credit for that plea. That reduces the starting point to a sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment.
So far as the possession charge is concerned, and taking into account the quantity of drugs and the latent risk of their falling into the wrong hands, I take a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment. That is reduced to a sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment to reflect the defendant’s plea.
To reflect the overall culpability of the defendant, both sentences are ordered to run concurrently. That results in a totality of 6 years’ imprisonment.