The defendant pleaded guilty to one Amended Charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. He admitted the Amended Summary of Facts prepared by the prosecution.
Admitted Facts
The facts of the case that the defendant has admitted can be summarized as follows for the present purpose.
In the afternoon of 8 August 2022, the defendant was intercepted by the police as he entered Royal Plaza Hotel. On the defendant was found the key card to a hotel room booked under the name of one Mr Javed. In the room was found the dangerous drugs particularized in the Amended Charge, namely a total of 54.16 grammes of ‘Ice’. There were also inhaling devices, used and empty resealable plastic bags, and an electric balance. The total estimated street value of the ‘Ice’ was $32,269.44.
Under caution, the defendant claimed that he picked up Mr Javed’s identity card and had been keeping it. He claimed that there were four to five friends who had visited him in the hotel room, including one Khan Abid (“Abid”). He asserted that all the dangerous drugs and paraphernalia were brought to and placed in the hotel room by Abid, and that Abid would consume drugs there in the presence of the defendant.
The prosecution informed me that they had nothing to contradict the defendant’s assertions under caution, and agreed that the defendant’s role in the case was one of storekeeper as submitted by Ms So, Counsel for the defendant.
Background and Mitigation
Based on the defendant’s antecedents statement, his criminal record, Ms So’s submissions and the defendant’s handwritten letter, the defendant’s background and submissions for mitigation are as follows.
The defendant was 25 years old at the time of offence; he is now 28 years old. He has a fiancée, with whom a daughter and a son of 9 and 7 years old respectively. He lives with them together with his parents, two younger brothers and a younger sister. He is educated up to Form 3 level. He has taken up different part-time jobs after graduation, the last one being a part-time food delivery worker earning about $5,000 per month. He is also a CSSA recipient of $3,000 a month. The defendant and his younger brothers supported the family financially.
The defendant committed the present offence because he wanted to earn quick money and consume free drugs. He is very remorseful and he wants to be a role model for his children by owning up to his mistakes and face the consequences. He hopes that he would not miss the opportunity to see them grow up. He is serving 4 years’ imprisonment for 19 charges in DCCC 1073/2023. Ms So describes that case as “not unrelated” to the present case and asked the court to take that term of imprisonment into account when determining the sentence in the present case.
Sentence
I now consider the six steps as stipulated in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of narcotics concerned.
The defendant trafficked in 54.16 grammes of ‘Ice’ on 8 August 2022 in the present case. The applicable sentencing band is 7 to 11 years of imprisonment for trafficking in 10 to 70 grammes of ‘Ice’, whether according to HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691 or the new sentencing guidelines laid down in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234 on 5 March 2025. On a pure mathematical basis, the starting point for sentence is 9 years 11 months’ imprisonment.
Steps two and three are to assess the role of the defendant and to decide where within the guidelines the defendant should lie. The defendant rented the hotel room using another person’s identity and allowed Abid to store the ‘Ice’ and paraphernalia in the room and consume drugs there. On his own admission, he would earn quick money and have free drugs to consume as a result. I consider the appropriate starting point should be one of 10 years’ imprisonment.
Step four deals with the aggravating factors. The defendant has 27 previous convictions in seven cases between 2010 and 2024. He was last sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment in DCCC 1073/2023. Most of the offences in DCCC 1073/2023 were committed before the present offence. Of all his previous convictions, he has only got one dangerous drug related conviction which was for simple possession. I will not treat this conviction as a similar offence based on HKSAR v Wan Wai Lun [2018] HKCA 30. However, the fact remains that he has a poor conviction record. For this reason, I enhance the starting point by 6 months to 10 years 6 months.
Step five considers the mitigating factors. I do not regard the defendant’s personal or family circumstances as any mitigating factor. As the Court of Appeal emphasised in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 at paragraph 32:
“As for mitigation, the grievousness of the offence - a description that is born of the recognition of the dreadful misery caused to victims and their families and the serious harm to society generally - dictates that meaningful mitigation, apart from the plea of guilty, is rarely available. The message must consistently be delivered, even to the vulnerable such as the relatively young and those who say they need money whether for themselves or for the benefit of family members who are ill, that the vast majority of vulnerable people do not succumb to pressure and do not resolve their problems by engaging in this illicit and dreadful trade.”
The only mitigating factor open to the defendant is his guilty plea entered at the earliest opportunity. For that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount. That brings down the sentence to 7 years’ imprisonment.
Finally, since the defendant is serving a 4 year term for DCCC 1073/2023 (the relevance of this case is that the defendant was also arrested for the offences in DCCC 1073/2023 as he entered Royal Plaza Hotel under the same operation) but the nature of offences are completely different from that in the present case, in order to reach a sentence that is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant, I order that 6 months of the present case be served concurrently with that in DCCC 1073/2023. In other words, 6 years and 6 months of the present case be served consecutively with that in DCCC 1073/2023.