CRIMINAL CASE NO. 196 OF 2010
You alighted the car and looked around and made a telephone call, which apparently raised the suspicions of the police, who approached you and declared their identities.
You were stopped by the police officer, and when the car was searched, a bag was found inside on the front passenger seat. The bag was found to contain what was subsequently analysed to be a mixture which contained 57.29 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.
Subsequent to your being arrested for trafficking in a dangerous drug, you told the police that you had collected the drugs from Un Chau Estate at Cheung Sha Wan and carried them to Shatin for a reward of $500 at the request of a friend of yours who you named as “Ai Chai”. He had telephoned you earlier that morning and asked you to carry out this particular transaction, although I note that you said that he had offered you $500 a week for a risky job.
You have pleaded guilty to the charge at an early stage, and that affords you a full one-third discount.
You have a number of previous convictions spread over a five‑year period during which there were two offences when you were convicted of possession of dangerous drugs. You have no previous for trafficking in dangerous drugs. I note, however, that for the last, effectively, 9 years, you have not been convicted of any further criminal offences, and I am told that that is because you have married and now have two young daughters.
You have said in a letter to me that your motivation for committing this offence was the fact that your wife’s father was unwell and you were seeking to raise moneys for additional medical treatment for him. That may well be the reason why, but it is not mitigation.
As you have clearly been told, there are tariffs for sentences that involve these quantities of drugs. The quantity that you had in your possession and in which you were trafficking comes at the lowest end of the range between 50 and 200 grammes, for which is prescribed 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment.
I will consequently take the starting point of 8 years or 96 months, which then falls to be reduced by one-third to 64 months - 5 years 4 months’ imprisonment.
There is nothing either aggravating or mitigating in the circumstances of the offence, nor in your personal circumstances, but in the present matter I am prepared to allow a further discount. From the reduced sentence of 64 months I will deduct a further 10 months, which results in a final sentence of 54 months, or 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.