HKSAR v. MOHAMED SULAYMAN

DCCC 866/2019

[2020] HKDC 339

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 866 OF 2019

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  The defendant, Mr Mohamed, has pleaded guilty to a single offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug on 9 February 2019 in a game centre in Temple Street. The drug itself is a quantity of 0.61 grammes, little over half a gramme of methamphetamine hydrochloride, colloquially known as ‘Ice’.

2.  The facts that I rely on show that the defendant procured the drug for a person referred to as PW1 at PW1’s request for the drug, and the price of $300 cash was agreed for the drug, and the defendant procured the drug for him for that sum of money.

3.  The Summary of Facts show that the street value of the drug is in fact $300-odd.  So it would appear to be an at cost procurement of the drug for PW1 and would appear on the face of the facts that I have to be what one would describe as a form of social trafficking rather than a commercial operation.

4.  The defendant was identified at an identification parade as the person selling the drug.

5.  The defendant’s background: he is now aged or at the time of the background report on him was aged 26.  He is a person of clear record.  There is a binding-over order in 2019 but that is not relevant to this matter.

6.  The report shows that the defendant committed this offence in January of 2019, at a time when he was working part‑time as a baggage handler at the airport.  Probation officer tells me the defendant had fallen in and was seeing at the game centre some persons we would describe as undesirable peers.  He experimented with him some of the drug ‘Ice’ around that time although by the time of the ‑‑ later on he has not because he no longer takes the drug.  Finally, his mother suffers from depression, is unwell but she is here today.

7.  Defendant is a young man, clear record, made a serious mistake, involving himself in this transaction.  As far as the approach to sentence is concerned, in cases of trafficking in a drug, the court’s hands are largely tied by the tariffs that exist in relation to sentencing.  The tariff for this particular drug ranges from 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in any quantity of the drug.  So it would appear that even a quantity of drug of this nature would attract a starting point in the region of 3 years’ imprisonment.

8.  I accept the mitigation that the offence for this defendant was out of character.  There are letters of commendation from his mosque, his mother and/or also the fiancée, that imprisonment of the defendant will be a large blow to this family.  And nevertheless, the court must proceed in the light of the guidelines issued by the Court of Appeal. 

9.  Taking into account the mitigating factors that I have set out, I consider the court can make some departure from that starting point, having regard to the fact that this is in the nature of social trafficking as opposed to commercial operation.  I will take a reduced starting point at 30 months’ imprisonment for this defendant as opposed to 36 months.  After deduction for a plea of guilty, that leads to an end sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment.  That will be the order.