COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate for one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He is committed before this court for sentence.
In the evening of 1 October 2023, the defendant was driving a vehicle and was intercepted by the police at the junction of Reclamation Street and Soy Street.
Upon search of the vehicle, a plastic bag was found under the driver’s seat with two transparent plastic bags inside. Inside the two plastic bags, there were a total of 47.6 grammes of a solid containing 43 grammes of cocaine. Inside the black plastic bag, another large resealable plastic bag was found containing 23.6 grammes of a solid containing 18.2 grammes of cocaine.
On the front passenger seat of the vehicle, a black sling bag was found with a black plastic bag in it. Inside the said black plastic bag, the following items were found, namely:
(a) One transparent resealable plastic bag containing four plastic bags containing a total of 0.77 grammes of a solid containing 0.70 grammes of cocaine.
(b) One transparent resealable plastic bag containing one plastic bag containing 0.61 grammes of a solid containing 0.53 grammes of ketamine.
(c) Two transparent resealable plastic bags containing ten plastic bags containing a total of 6.34 grammes of a solid containing 5.50 grammes of ketamine.
(d) Two transparent resealable plastic bags containing nine plastic bags containing a total of 5.73 grammes of a solid containing 4.96 grammes of ketamine.
Further, with the assistance of the drugs detection dog, one HK$20 banknote, folded into a packet containing 0.34 grammes of a solid containing 0.26 grammes of cocaine was found under the carpet at the driver’s seat.
The total quantity of drugs found inside the vehicle is therefore 72.31 grammes of a solid containing 62.16 grammes of cocaine and 12.68 grammes of a solid containing 10.99 grammes of ketamine.
The estimated street value of the drugs found was HK$83,028.
Upon search on the defendant, cash in the amount of HK$44,367 was found. Under caution, the defendant said, among other things, that he was unemployed and has no income. He bought the drugs for HK$8,000 from an unknown male, and he felt stressful recently and intended to take the drugs to relieve himself.
The defendant is now 43 years old. He was married but separated with his wife in 2023. He has a 7-year-old daughter. He has a clear record. Both the defendant’s parents and his wife wrote letters to the court to ask for the court’s leniency. According to Mr Keung, counsel for the defendant, after the separation with his wife, the defendant quit his job as a driver and became a casual drug addict.
In consideration of sentence, this court has to adopt the six-step approach set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and follow the guidelines set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang No.3 [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 and also the case of SJ v Hii Siew Cheng, CAAR 7/2005(2006?).
In the present case, two different kinds of drugs are involved. As submitted by Mr Keung, in deciding the appropriate starting point based on the quantities of drugs, the court has to countercheck with the absurdity test, the conversion test and the ratio test. Mr Keung has set out in his written submission of the results of applying different tests using the guidelines laid down in Huang Ruifang and Hii Siew Cheng. I will not set out here in detail the results arrived at by Mr Keung. It is sufficient to say that the range for sentencing will be 8 years 3 months to 8 years 7 months.
Regarding the role of the defendant, I accept the submission of Mr Keung that the defendant is a courier. Mr Keung submitted that part of the drugs seized were for the defendant’s own consumption and specifically it is the case of the defendant that one plastic bag of cocaine found under the driver’s seat was for his own consumption. Mr Keung submitted that as the urine test of the defendant was positive on cocaine and traces of drugs were found on a banknote, there is evidence that some drugs were for the defendant’s own use.
I am unable to accept that a significant portion of the drugs were for the defendant’s own consumption. Although there is evidence that the defendant was a drug addict, he was unemployed and has no income, it is unbelievable that he would spend a large amount of money to buy drugs for his own use. I can only accept that the defendant had used the notes to take drugs and only 0.26 grammes of cocaine in the bulk can be regarded as the quantity of drugs for his own use. I see no reason to give any substantial discount on sentence because of this.
In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 8 years 3 months’ imprisonment for the present offence. I will however give a slight adjustment of the sentence for the drugs potentially to be used by the defendant for his own consumption and for that purpose, I will reduce the starting point to 8 years’ imprisonment.
I see no other aggravating factors. Apart from the defendant’s guilty plea, there is no other valid mitigating factor.
Giving full discount to the defendant’s guilty plea, the sentence is therefore reduced to 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.