COURT: Mr Pang, you have pleaded guilty today to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs. That relates to an arrest on 15 October 2006, when you were intercepted near to No 76 Lai Chi Kok Road and you were searched and found to have methamphetamine hydrochloride hidden in a resealable plastic bag within your sock. You also had electronic scales in your trouser pocket. The narcotic content of that ‘Ice’ was 19.61 grammes and you accepted at the time that the drugs were yours.
You were later placed on police bail but you failed to answer that bail and you have, I note, not been in trouble since that date. You were, however, rearrested on 16 November 2016 as a result of a routine review of your file and not because you came to the attention of the police for any other reason.
You were listed for trial on 10 April before me, but you have since changed your mind and have decided to plead guilty. So your appearance before this court for that offence, and indeed your plea, are very late indeed.
I have noted what you said in your video-recorded interview, at the time of your arrest and I have taken into account what has occurred, or perhaps not occurred, in the intervening years. I believe that you were most probably in possession of that ‘Ice’ for your own consumption and to the extent that you were trafficking in it, it was likely to have been to friends at little or no profit. Nevertheless, you were trafficking and you have pleaded guilty to that.
You said in your video-recorded interview that you consumed 1 gramme once or twice a week and Mr Beel, on your behalf, urges the court to take as high a percentage as possible for that purpose. Although, of course, he accepts that the authorities usually relate to something in the order of 10 to 25 per cent.
Mr McNamara, on behalf of the prosecution, accepts that you did consume some dangerous drugs and would not gainsay something in the order of 20 per cent.
It falls to the court, of course, to attempt to assess what a realistic amount might have been for your own consumption, given that I accept that what you said in the VRI was likely to have been the truth and that you were comfortably off at the time of offending with both you and your wife in gainful employment. I do not believe you were trafficking to feed your habit. I do believe that this was a midlife crisis and that you were purchasing for predominately your own consumption.
As such, the case before me is slightly different than others to which the Court of Appeal has referred. For the purposes of sentencing today, I am, exceptionally, prepared to accept that up to half of what you had in your possession was for your own consumption. Although you must remember that I do have to take into account the latent risk that you could have sold that ‘Ice’ on to friends as well if the opportunity had arisen, and you would, in any event, have been guilty of possession of that amount. I will therefore sentence you on the basis that 10 grammes was likely to have been trafficked and the remainder consumed by you.
The relevant sentencing guideline for the offence of trafficking in ‘Ice’ in October 2006 is HKSAR v Ching Kwok Hung [1990] 1 HKLRD 125. For trafficking in between 10 grammes to 70 grammes of ‘Ice’, the sentencing range is between 7 and 10 years. So for trafficking in 10 grammes of ‘Ice’ and taking into account the latent risk and the element of simple possession, the starting point is therefore 7 years after trial.
Having entered your plea at such a late stage, it is open to the court not to award you the full one-third discount. But I am not altogether convinced that you were not badly advised on the last occasion and therefore, given your good character in the intervening years, your very limited, unrelated record, including your failure to answer to bail, I am prepared to give you the full one-third discount, which means you will go to prison for 4 years and 8 months.