The defendant went to trial on two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The 1st charge concerned his trafficking in 22.48 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“Ice”) which was found in two plastic bags in his trouser pocket when he was intercepted and searched by police in the ground floor lift lobby of his building. The 2nd charge concerned 9.77 grammes of “Ice” found in the living area of his small flat upstairs, which was searched by the same team of police following the discovery of the drugs on his person.
The defendant’s trial commenced with a voir dire to determine the admissibility of statements the defendant had made to the police in which the defendant had ownership of the drugs the subject of both charges. Following my ruling that the statements were admissible as evidence, the defendant changed his plea to guilty on each charge.
The appropriate starting point for the 1st charged offence, given the quantity of the drugs involved and their nature is 7 years 6 months’ imprisonment. The only substantive mitigation available to the defendant is his late plea of guilty.
Insofar as the lateness of his plea is concerned, I take into account the comments in the HKSAR v Leung Cho Yi, CACC 385/2008, and HKSAR v Wong Kam Tat [2002] 2 HKC 677. In my view, the appropriate discount will be one of 20 per cent in respect of each charge. That results in a sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment in respect of the 1st charged offence.
The starting point in respect of the 2nd charged offence is complicated by Mr Hemmings’ submission, which I accept, that a substantial proportion of 9.77 grammes of “Ice” found in packets on the living room table in the defendant’s flat was for the defendant’s own consumption. These drugs were found on that table next to items related to their consumption. Two bottles with inhalation straws were next to three small packets of “Ice” which were left on top of the table. A small gas burner was also present, presumably used for heating the “Ice” in the two bottles, and a gas refill bottle. These items were consistent with self-use.
But also on the table in a box were some 90 small empty plastic bags, packed neatly in three separate larger plastic bags, as well as a set of electronic scales. Those items are consistent only with trafficking. Other items were also found on the table which were neutral in indicating the proportion of the drugs which was for self-consumption.
It is obviously difficult to estimate the precise proportion of the drugs which could have been for self-use. Because, however, of the very substantive number of plastic bags and the scales, I estimate that at least half were for trafficking. Accordingly, I proceed on that basis.
Additionally, however, I further take into account that the balance of these drugs were possessed by the defendant and that there was a high latent risk of them falling into the hands of others. In this regard, as the defendant and his girlfriend were arrested in the main lobby as they were leaving the building, they had left behind in the small flat two female friends and the babies each was apparently looking after, in close proximity to, and with a plain a view of the drugs.
Accordingly, in respect of the 2nd charge, I take a starting point of sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment. Again, bearing in mind the defendant’s late plea of guilty, that starting point is reduced by 20 per cent to a sentence of 4 years 9 months’ imprisonment.
Insofar as the totality of sentence is concerned, I consider the total quantity of the drugs involved and bear in mind the overall proportion of the drugs relating to simple possession in the 2nd charge, and order in respect of the sentences imposed that 3 years 9 months be served concurrently.
That results in a total sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment.