|
DCCC 796/2017
[2018] HKDC 241
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 796 OF 2017
------------------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
TANTHASURIYA THANOMSAK (1st Defendant) |
|
| |
PHICHAYOT PRONTIPPRA (2nd Defendant) |
|
------------------------------
| Present: |
Mr Tse C.H., Bruce, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR |
|
Mr Karbhari Jal Nadirshaw of Messrs. Jal N. Karbhari & Co.
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for 1st & 2nd defendant |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug（販運危險藥物） |
---------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---------------------------------------
1. Police in a patrol car stopped the defendants in the street, which led to the discovery of drugs.
2. The defendants, both Thai nationals – they are boyfriend (D1) and girlfriend (D2) living together, are jointly charged with one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, the drugs in question are 7.43 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 7.39 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as ice. D1 pleaded guilty while the charge against D2 is put on Court’s file.
3. The prosecution case is that around mid-night on 8 June 2017, officers in a police car patrolling the streets of Wan Chai spotted the couple acting furtively at Jaffe Road, got off and intercepted them for questioning.
4. Officers searched the bag carried by D2 and found the drugs in question inside a coin bag the street value of which is estimated to be around $2,800; the drugs were separately placed in 6 resealable plastic bags and a paper bag.
5. D2 was arrested for possession of the drugs. Insofar as D1 was concerned, no contraband was found on him so he was allowed to go.
6. In a subsequent interview with the police, D2 said she only carried the bag containing the drugs for her boyfriend, i.e. D1; she was not told specifically what they were, though she had her suspicion about it. She went on to say that her boyfriend is a drug abuser while she is not. And consequently, D1 was arrested about a week later.
7. D1, admitting the drugs are his, exonerated his girlfriend from all the drugs in an interview with the police, and elaborated his drug habit by saying that he had been on drugs for over a decade and would consume 0.5 gramme of ice on a daily basis.
8. Police had searched the couple’s residence twice, one on the day when D2 was arrested and the other when D1 was arrested, but on neither occasion did the police find any drug paraphernalia.
9. D1, aged 51, has amassed 7 previous convictions over the past 18 years; all are to do with drugs, 3 of them are trafficking. His last conviction is a trafficking offence back in 2011 for which he was given a 2-year prison term.
10. The court heard that D1, a divorcee with a son and a daughter from his previous marriage, is co-habiting with D2. He came to Hong Kong from Thailand in the year 1990 and now works as a cook at a Thai restaurant earning about $14,000 a month.
11. Defence Counsel said that D1 committed the offence due to stress from work as well as heavy family responsibility for he has aging parents and children from previous marriage to support in Thailand. D1 is extremely remorseful, counsel said, and begging for leniency from the court.
12. Although D1 had told the police during interview about his drug habit, his daily consumption rate and all that, his counsel has not put forward anything in mitigation along the part consumption and part trafficking lines. Given his unequivocal admission of the fact, which in paragraph 7 of the admitted facts states that “D1 now admits at the material times he possessed all the ICE mentioned in paragraph 2 hereinabove for the purpose of trafficking them”, I am prepared to sentence him on the basis that he trafficked the whole lot of the drugs in question.
13. There are sentencing guidelines for trafficking in this type of drugs – trafficking up to 10 grammes would attract a term between 3 to 7 years. Given the amount (7.39 grammes) D1 admitted trafficking, I take 71 months as starting point.
14. As far as his mitigation is concerned, apart from his guilty plea, there isn’t any substantial mitigation. His plea is timely so he is entitled to a full one-third discount.
15. Deducting one-third, the starting point is reduced to 47 months. There being no reason for further deduction in sentence, D1 is sentenced to 47 months’ imprisonment.
|