COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty in the magistrate’s court to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 9,894 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 9,703 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The facts are all too familiar. The defendant was intercepted in the corridor of the premises leading to his room. And upon a search by police officers, a mobile phone and four keys were found on him. He was subsequently escorted to his room. And inside the room was a mattress and a living room and a toilet. And on the living room floor were found a yellow/brown bakery bag which contained nine tea leaves bags which were subsequently found to contain part of the ‘Ice’ which was the subject matter of the charge.
In a cabinet in the living room, there was also another plastic bag containing the rest of the methamphetamine hydrochloride that is the subject matter of the charge. And also found was a cutter amongst other things and a toothbrush. And the defendant was arrested and under caution he said he received $18,000 in order to let the person place the drugs there.
The estimated street value of the total drugs was $5,303,384. Quite a sizeable amount.
Under caution, subsequently in a video-recorded interview, the defendant said he was a MTR employee earning about $11,000 a month. His residence is normally in Tai Wai with his brother and father, but he rented a room in order to be near his girlfriend. And this room was where the drugs were found. This room was rented for about a monthly rent of $4,500 and he had already been renting the room since December 2021.
And the defendant asserted that he was asked by a friend whether he could stay in the room because he had COVID. And so after the friend stayed in the room, the friend returned the keys to him, gave him $18,000 and asked that this bag of stuff in the room which he left behind can be kept there. And the $18,000 was his reward for allowing the bag of stuff to be kept there. And he, the defendant, asserted that he went to the room about a week later and found another brown bag.
And subsequently he thought that it was drugs in those bags because he found that it was not normal to be paid so much money just to store tea leaves. And then he allowed the drugs to remain in the room and he gave the $18,000 cash to his friend and to deposit into his bank account and he used part of the money. And the defendant’s DNA was found in the items found inside the room.
Now, the defendant was aged 22 at the time of the offence and has a clear record. He has strong support from his family who Ms Chan made known to the court today that they are all here to support him. And that from the letters submitted in mitigation, it shows that he is a person who is well loved and basically that this was out of character to what he normally was being a filial son and a caring son to his parents and also to his family and to his girlfriend.
However, trafficking in dangerous drugs is such a serious offence that personal considerations are very seldom taken into account, particularly in the case of an adult male who for the benefit of having a reward allows such a large amount of drugs to be stored in his room. This amount of drugs if it is distributed into the public domain will affect many, many families and sometimes most tragically.
And that is why the courts are very, very severe about making sure that people who participate in trafficking in dangerous drugs are not treated with as much leniency as those who have been arrested implores the court to do because traffickers use people who may have clear records, who are underage in order to carry on their nefarious activities. So a message has to be sent out to society that those who indulge in this very evil trafficking will go away for a long time.
And in view of this, the Court of Appeal had laid down guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs and the sentences that they suggest are really based on the weight of the dangerous drugs. In this case, it is 9,703 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. And the relevant guideline is as stated in Abdallah that trafficking between 4,000 to 15,000 grammes, the sentence will be 26 to 30 years’ imprisonment.
Now, as Ms Chan also pointed out that in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021], there are steps taken by the court in assessing the sentence to be given. First of all, assessing the gravity of the offence by referring to the quantity and type of drug, the defendant’s role is the next assessment. And I am sure that the defendant was a storekeeper, so it is not as if he was a one-off courier of drugs. He was keeping over $5 million worth of drugs and the role of the defendant in the circumstances, well, that has already been made clear. He rented the room in which the drugs were found.
There is no aggravating factor in this case. However, I agree with Ms Chan. And the only mitigation factor is his early plea. And so in the circumstances, considering all the factors that I have listed out, I consider that the starting point should be one of 28 years’ imprisonment.
Because he has pleaded guilty, he is entitled to one-third off, which reduces the sentence to one of 18 years and 8 months.