COURT: Both defendants have pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
Summary of Facts reveals the following.
On 21 June 2022, police officers intercepted D1 outside an apartment in Tsuen Wan. With the keys seized from D1, police officers entered the apartment. Inside this 100 square feet tiny apartment was D2 lying on a bed. Police officers found 618.73 grammes of ketamine in 444 bags, 63.17 grammes of cocaine in 320 bags, and various paraphernalia.
Both D1 and D2 admitted that they unlawfully trafficked in those dangerous drugs in question. D1 is 26, educated up to Form 3 level. Prior to his arrest, he was a construction/renovation worker.
D1 explained in one letter his reason for committing the present offence. Both parents have also written in pleading for leniency from the court. I understand the parents’ wish, however, I am bound by the sentencing authorities set by the Court of Appeal.
D1 has five criminal records, one similar and was sentenced to 48 months in 2016. At present, he is serving a 3 years 7 months’ imprisonment for assault with intent to rob and assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2023.
D2 is now again 26, educated up to Form 5 level. Prior to his arrest, he was also a construction worker. D2 has three criminal convictions, none similar.
In April and June 2021, he was sentenced to, effectively, 8 months and 2 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 3 years in relation to one count of indecent conduct towards a child under the age of 16 and one count of fraud. In other words, D2 committed the present offence soon after the commencement of the suspension period.
D2 has also written in a letter pleading for leniency from the court. In essence, he felt sorry for the disappointment he caused to his father.
Counsel for the prosecution as well as the defence have kindly agreed on the starting point based on different tests given two dangerous drugs are involved in the present case. They are of the view that the basic starting point should be set between 156 and 160 months.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to both defendants, I will adopt 156 months as the basic starting point. Both D1 and D2 were not acting simply as couriers, their operation involved the repackaging, storing and delivering of the two dangerous drugs in question.
The reasons for doing so were purely financial. Given the nature of their work, an additional 6 months will be added to the basic starting point. As indicated above, D1 has one similar conviction before, as such an additional 6 months will be given.
The overall starting point for D1 will be set at 168 months’ imprisonment. In this case, in my view, the only mitigation is the 1st defendant’s earlier plea. For the sole offence, D1 stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 112 months’ imprisonment, that is 9 years and 4 months.
D1 committed the present offence while he was on bail for the last case stated in his criminal record. Given the nature of the two cases, it is different and the fact that I have just mentioned about committing the present offence whilst he was on bail. So for that, the present sentence will run consecutive to the one sentence in the District Court.
For D2, the overall starting point is set at 162 months’ imprisonment. D2, likewise, will be given the one-third full discount for his plea. For the sole offence, D2 stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment, 108 months’ imprisonment.
The 8 months’ imprisonment term in the case of Fan Ling FL/466/21 and 2 months’ imprisonment term in FL/784/21 will be activated. Thus, D2 will serve a total of 118 months in three cases.