CRIMINAL CASE NO. 441 OF 2010
COURT: This Defendant pleaded guilty at committal on 24 December 2010 to two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug being cocaine. Charge 1 related to 60.79 grammes of a solid containing 53.75 grammes of cocaine. Charge 2 related to 1,019.40 grammes of a solid containing 956.87 grammes of cocaine.
Today, before me, the Defendant has confirmed his pleas to those charges and also confirms a slightly amended version of the facts that he admitted at committal. Those facts show that the Defendant was stopped and searched as he left the building where he lived by police who were conducting an anti-narcotics operation. A search of the black bag that the Defendant was carrying revealed four resealable plastic bags containing suspected dangerous drugs, one of which contained 42 plastic bags of suspected drugs. In addition, the bag contained a bundle of keys, three telephones, $7,560 in cash and a notebook.
The Defendant was arrested and cautioned for the offence of trafficking. In reply, the Defendant said that the “coke” belonged to him and had nothing to do with his family. When questioned, he told the police that he lived in a flat upstairs and he was escorted back to the room. The Defendant’s mother was at the entrance of the flat. The police revealed their identity to her, explained the purpose of their visit and the Defendant’s mother identified the Defendant as her son.
The premises were searched and a blue plastic basin was found inside a washing machine in the kitchen. In the basin were 42 plastic bags of suspected dangerous drugs. One of those bags contained 80 bags of suspected dangerous drugs. The Defendant was cautioned again. Again he replied that the bags belonged to him and had nothing to do with his mother. He claimed, at that stage, that he did not know what those things were.
From a wardrobe in the living room, police found a bag containing two electronic scales, a funnel, a spoon, a bowl, two writing brushes and two plastic bags containing a quantity of resealable plastic bags.
Under caution at the police station, the Defendant admitted that the items seized from him were for his own consumption. He denied knowledge of the nature of the items and explained that he had obtained the substance from a man named Wong Chai whom he met at a bar in Zuhai. At the time he received the substances from Wong at the shopping arcade at the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier, they were already packed in many packets. He had taken the packages home and put them inside the washing machine. He did not recall when he received the items from Wong.
He confirmed that he occupied the flat with his mother who knew nothing about his activities. He would rent a room in order to smoke the substance supplied by Wong. He reiterated that the substance was for his own consumption and he did not know it was a dangerous drug.
In a further interview under caution, the Defendant said he had no knowledge of the nature of the drugs. The substance he acquired from Wong was in the form of lumps like sugar. He refused to answer questions relating to the paraphernalia seized but maintained that the two brushes were for writing. The premises were registered in the name of the Defendant’s mother and the Defendant was registered as an occupant of the unit.
Later analysis by the Government Chemist confirmed the quantities and the nature of the drugs as set out in the charges. Powder traces containing cocaine were found on the scales, the funnel and the two brushes. The bowl and spoon contained a measurable quantity, albeit very small, of cocaine. At the time of the seizure, the street value of the drugs was estimated at $1,452,855.
The Defendant formally admits that, at all material times, he possessed the dangerous drugs as set out in the two charges for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
I was advised that the Defendant has a clear record. He is now aged 30. He came to Hong Kong as a 4-year-old. His parents divorced in the late 90s and have been living apart. At that stage, he lost contact with his father but since his arrest for this offence, he has been in contact with his father again.
As an explanation for this offence, he said that he was in need of money. He had been unemployed for a couple of months at the time of his arrest. He was living with his mother who is in her early 60s but is unable to work because she is ill. She has systemic lupus, diabetes and high blood pressure. She is required to go to the hospital at least once a month for treatment and she is on regular medication. The Defendant wanted money to assist with her illnesses.
The only mitigating factor in this case is the Defendant’s plea of guilty for which I accept he is entitled to a full one-third discount. It is a particularly sad case in view of the fact that the Defendant has reached the age of 30 with a clear record and he has thrown away his freedom in such a risky fashion as this.
The guidelines for sentencing on cocaine are the same as those for heroin and are set out in HKSAR v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 and in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437. In the case of Abdallah, the guidelines are set for large quantities of cocaine over 600 grammes; 1,200 grammes comes into the range of 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment. I note that the total narcotic quantity of cocaine for the two charges is 1,010.62 grammes. As I said, the only mitigation is the plea of guilty for which the Defendant is entitled to a full discount.
In respect of the 1st charge, I take a starting point of 8 years and sentence the Defendant to 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. In respect of Charge 2, I take a starting point of 21 years and sentence the Defendant to 14 years’ imprisonment. Both sentences are to run concurrently.