COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 0.24 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.23 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. He was committed to this court for sentencing.
The facts are all too common, in that the defendant was stopped at the Lok Ma Chau Border Control Point in the early hours of 13 June last year and upon a search inside his underwear was found the drugs named in the indictment. The defendant claimed that he was told to bring the drugs from the mainland into Hong Kong for a reward of $2,000.
The travel movement record show that the defendant left Hong Kong via the Lok Ma Chau Control Point at midnight on 13 June and returned in the same morning at 3.46 am on the same day. So it is clear from that that his sole purpose was really to go to China to collect the drugs and bring it back to Hong Kong.
The retail value of the drugs seized is estimated to be about HK$161,280.
The defendant is aged 64 and has 15 previous convictions; seven of which are to do with drugs. On one occasion he was convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug and that was in 2007, where he was sent to prison for 5 years and 4 months. Just before this offence, he had been released from prison in February 2013, so the defendant is no stranger to the courts.
In mitigation, Mr Ching produced a medical report testifying to the fact that the defendant had been treated in the past for a lung problem and a heart problem whilst he was in prison custody.
The defendant, despite his old age, did not take advantage of the chances which have been offered to him when he was sent to a drug addiction treatment centre previously. Since 2007, he has been in and out of prison quite consistently.
The only mitigation I can see in this case is the fact that he had pleaded guilty at an early stage.
As is well known, there are guidelines laid down for trafficking in methamphetamine hydrochloride in the 1991 case of Ching Kwok Hung and it was said by the Court of Appeal that for trafficking in 70 to 300 grammes of “ice” would merit a guideline sentence of 10 to 14 years’ imprisonment after trial.
In this case the amount is 230 grammes and I would consider a starting point, taking into account everything that I have said, should be one of 13 years’ imprisonment. This was a clear case where the defendant went across the border to bring these drugs back to Hong Kong and I will increase that sentence by one year to 14 years’ imprisonment. I will reduce it because of the defendant’s plea by one third.
And so the defendant will go to prison for 9 years and 4 months.
I have no doubt that he will get the necessary medical attention whilst in prison.