The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
On 23 October 2023, the defendant was intercepted after he had come out from an exit gate at the Wong Tai Sin MTR station. When officers were checking the shoulder bag he was carrying, the defendant threw the bag onto the floor and ran away. He was soon subdued.
When officers searched the bag, the dangerous drugs as set out in the charge were found. The drugs were 65.3 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 63.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 24.18 grammes of a solid containing 19.83 grammes of ketamine.
I was told that the defendant is divorced, 41 years of age. He received education up to Form 3. He was unemployed at the time of the arrest.
Learned counsel for the defence, Mr David Cheung, urged the court to take into account that the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and he is now remorseful.
In consideration of the sentence, I follow the sentencing approach as laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph, CACC 93/2019, and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
The case involved two types of drugs. In consideration, I follow the approach as stated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Islam S M Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146. In the circumstances of the present case, I see no reason to depart from the relevant tariffs.
I accept the submission of Mr Cheung that the role of the defendant was one of a courier and in any case occupied a low position in the hierarchy. There were 63.2 grammes of ‘Ice’. According to Huang Ruifang (No.3), it by itself address a notional sentence after trial of about 10½ years.
There were also 19.83 grammes of ketamine. According to SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, it by itself address a notional sentence after trial of slightly under 4½ years.
In this case, ‘Ice’ was obviously the prominent drug, both in terms of quantity and degree of harm. Bearing this in mind, I adopt the combined approach and check whether the notional sentence after trial to adopt is fair and appropriate by testing it against the absurdity test, conversion test, and the ratio test.
In addition, I bear in mind that trafficking in different types of drugs presented two possible aggravating features of a wider market and the effect on users of combination of dangerous drugs.
In my judgment, a starting point of 11 years, which includes an enhancement of about 3 months, is sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the case and culpability of the defendant.
This is the second time the defendant was convicted for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drug. In 2021, for that offence, he was sentenced to 47 months’ imprisonment. He was discharged on 27 August 2023. Soon after his discharge, he committed the present offence.
In my judgment, beware of the risk of excessive enhancement, I am of the view that the sentence should be further enhanced by about 3 months for this factor.
Having considered the whole of the circumstances, I adopt 11 years 3 months as the ultimate notional sentence after trial. The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate, and for this, he is entitled to a one-third discount.
Having considered the whole circumstances, including what Mr Cheung mitigated on the defendant’s behalf, I am of the view that one-third is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to. In my judgment, the sentence to be imposed on the defendant is fair, just, and balanced in the circumstances of the case and the defendant.
For the reasons I have said, I sentence you to an immediate imprisonment term of 7½ years.