COURT: Both defendants pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The dangerous drugs involved in the charge is 30.63 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 30.52 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’.
In the morning of 15 November 2022, police officers mounted an anti-narcotics operation in the area of Mirador Mansion, Tsim Sha Tsui. On entering Room 6 on the 13th Floor, Flat A5, they saw the two defendants, and upon search of the room, the relevant drugs were found.
The 1st defendant was born in Bangladesh. He is currently 44 years old. He was educated up to the 9th standard in Bangladesh, and is a Form 8 recognizance holder, arrived in Hong Kong in 2014.
Mr Murray, counsel for the 1st defendant, submitted that the 1st defendant applied to the Immigration Department to go back to Bangladesh, and is now waiting to be processed to go home. The 1st defendant is married in Bangladesh. His family is there. He used to be a driver in Dubai, and
also a security guard. He has a daughter who is now 11 years old, and the whole family live together in Bangladesh. The 2nd defendant was the girlfriend of the 1st defendant in Hong Kong. The 1st defendant has one previous conviction in Hong Kong, which was possession of dangerous drugs in 2017.
The 2nd defendant is 42 years old. At the time of the arrest, she was 39. She had been a domestic helper in Hong Kong. She first arrived in Hong Kong in 2014, and her employment contract ended in 2017. And thereafter, she overstayed. She had been living with the 1st defendant, her boyfriend, for about six years prior to her arrest in 2022. Although she has a previous conviction for breach of condition of stay in May 2023, and I suppose it is an offence after the present offence, so she can be treated as a clear record.
In her mitigation letter to the court, the defendant indicated that she has a family in the Philippines. She has a son who is now 7 years old, and a daughter 20 years old. And she admitted that she committed the present offence out of a sense of responsibility towards the financial support of her children and her mother. And according to Mr Percy, counsel for the 2nd defendant, the defendant is herself a drug addict, and part of the drugs found was for her own consumption.
In considering the sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs, as submitted by both counsel, the court should consider the Court of Appeal cases in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph, and also Huang Ruifang.
For the quantity involved in this matter, as set out in Huang Ruifang, between 10 grammes and 70 grammes of ‘Ice’, the starting point should fall within 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment after trial. Both counsel submitted that the arithmetic result for the present quantity involved in this case should result in a starting point of 8 years, 4 months’ imprisonment. And I agree.
And given the role played by the defendants in this matter, in particular in view of the scale of the drug trafficking activities here, I do not think it is appropriate to increase any starting point because of the defendants’ roles.
Now, for the 1st defendant, he is a Form 8 holder, and I am minded to give an enhancement of sentence because of that. And I accept the submission of Mr Murray that 6 months’ imprisonment would be an appropriate enhancement. The 1st defendant has not pleaded guilty in the first opportunity.
It is at the stage of after the pre-trial review. But I will also accept the submission of Mr Murray that a 25 per cent discount shall be given. In the circumstances, the sentence of the defendant will be 8 years, 4 months plus 6 months, and to have the sentence discounted for 75 per cent to become 79 months’ imprisonment.
In this matter, in consideration of the circumstances, I accept that some of the drugs seized were for the self-consumption of the defendants. Given the urine test of the 2nd defendant, the previous conviction of the 1st defendant, and the circumstances that those drugs were found in the domestic household of the defendants. And for that purpose, I will have a further reduction of 3 months from the overall sentence. And the 1st defendant is therefore sentenced to 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.