HKSAR v. SRI MUSRIAH

DCCC 289/2024

[2025] HKDC 1291

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 289 OF 2024

------------------

------------------

-------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

-------------------------------------

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in  dangerous drugs in respect of the seizure of various drugs in a flat in Sha Po Old Village on Lamma Island. The drugs concerned were 10.59 grammes of cocaine, 41.36 grammes of herbal cannabis, a further 3.25 grammes of, what we describe as THC.  There were also some traces only of methamphetamine found on a solid and in some fluid found in the flat.

2.  The facts are very straightforward.  The defendant is resident in the premises at Sha Po Old Village in Lamma Island together with another lady.  Police entered the premises and seized the drugs set out in the Admitted Facts within the premises in various locations.  The defendant was subsequently interviewed and she admitted that she was a resident in the premises and she was in fact looking after the drugs which been placed there by another male.  She was aware of the presence of the drugs in the flat. She had on one occasion, she said, delivered some drugs to another person. There were some apparatus for the weighing of drugs in the premises.  The defendant herself admits that she is currently a Form 8 holder in Hong Kong.

3.  As far as her backgrounds concerned, she is an Indonesian of 37 years old.  She had come to Hong Kong as a domestic helper and worked until 2020 and she is a Form 8 recognisance holder in Hong Kong now.  She is in fact of clear record in Hong Kong although she has been detained in the past on immigration matters.

4.  As far as the approach to the sentence is concerned, the calculation of sentences in these cases are governed largely by guidelines and also by the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yuseph which can be found at [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.  Also the calculation of the tariffs can be seen from the most recent case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCU 940.  I do not propose to go into great detail on these matters as they are fairly straightforward in this case.

5.  The first step of course in sentencing in a case such as this is to look at the tariff or the appropriate tariff in respect of the drugs that have been seized.  In respect of the cocaine, we have got a total of 10.95 grammes which puts it in the band of 10 to 50 grammes cocaine which with the starting point of sentencing between 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment and here the sentence will lie at the bottom end of that band of 5 years’ imprisonment.

6.  The cannabis that was found in herbal form and in the form of THC is also governed by a guideline.  I do not propose to go into any details as to how that calculation is made but the overall starting point for sentence in respect of the cannabis that has been found in the premises would be in the region of 3 months’ imprisonment.

7.  There is an additional reference to drug in the charge and that is there are traces of methamphetamine on a solid and in a liquid.  In this case there is no quantity so there does not appear to be a quantity to take into account for sentencing.  I do not propose to add any further calculation sentence in respect of the methamphetamine in this case.

8.  As far as the second step in sentencing would be concerned, defendant’s role and her culpability, she appears to have elements of storekeeper and courier but she is at the what I call the lowest level of the drug distribution pyramid and she appears to have been involved in this trade as a result of getting free accommodation.

9.  Determining the appropriate starting point for the overall sentence for the drugs, I must take a look at the fact that this is what we call a cocktail of drugs which is an aggravating factor in itself.  There are number of ways this can be approached.  It is suggested that I take the combined approach as opposed to the individual approach.  In fact in this case I do not think it makes a lot of difference because the calculation of the starting point is very simple.  So there is no need to apply the absurdity conversion or ratio tests that would normally apply.

10.  The main basis sentence of course is the cocaine which would have a starting point of 60 months’ imprisonment.  There should be an enhancement of that for the presence of the other drug which is the cannabis in its two forms and for the fact that this is a combination of drugs.  I consider taking into account the overall sentence that should be imposed, the actual addition should be one of 3 months’ imprisonment for those extra drugs, leaving us with a total at this stage of 63 months’ imprisonment.

11.  I see no need to impose any further additional sentences in respect of the presence of the non-saline form of methamphetamine, that is only in a trace form. 

12.  Now I must look furthermore at any aggravating or mitigating factors on the overall sentencing scenario.  The most obvious aggravating factor in this case is the fact that the defendant is a Form 8 holder and as the authorities say, that is an aggravating factor in these cases.  The enhancement for that can range between 3 to 6 months’ imprisonment.  Given the defendant’s situation, her status and circumstances, I will take the lowest figure there of one of 3 months’ imprisonment giving at this stage a total overall sentence, a starting point of sentence of 66 months’ imprisonment. 

13.  Defendant is of course entitled as a mitigating factor her plea of guilty which would lead to a one-third discount, leaving a final sentence of 44 months’ imprisonment or 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  That will be the sentence of the court.