COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely two pieces of solid containing a total of 16.08 grammes of methamphetamine, which is commonly known as ‘Ice’.
He has admitted the Summary of Facts prepared by the prosecution. In gist, on 11 July 2022, the police entered the flat of which he is the registered tenant and sole occupant, and found the ‘Ice’ in the charge, an electronic scale and cash of $1,420. Under caution, he stated that he was on CSSA and he had bought the ‘Ice’ with $4,500 from unknown males for self-consumption.
The street value of the ‘Ice’ in the case is estimated to be $25,373.
By admitting the Summary of Facts, he has accepted and admitted that he illegally trafficked in all of the ‘Ice’ in the case.
The defendant has 18 previous convictions from 16 cases. 12 of the convictions were related to dangerous drugs, and amongst them three more dated ones were of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, and three more recent ones were of trafficking in a dangerous drug. He was last convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs in November 2011 for which he was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. He was released from prison in April 2019.
The defendant is now 60 years old and was 57 at the time of offence. He was educated up to Secondary 1 level. He is single, he was unemployed at the time of offence.
Mr Tze, counsel for the defendant, submits that the starting point of sentence should be around 7 years 4 months and 28 days of imprisonment. He submits to the effect that 3.675 grammes of the ‘Ice’ in the case were for the defendant’s self-consumption, but the defendant will not give evidence in this regard.
Although the defendant’s urine test upon admission to remand centre was positive for amphetamine, the defendant was on CSSA and he had admitted in the Summary of Facts that he illegally trafficked in all of the ‘Ice’ in the case. I have therefore indicated to Mr Tze that I am not prepared to accept this aspect of the mitigation, especially in the absence of evidence from the defendant. Mr Tze understood and confirmed that he has advised the defendant accordingly. In any event, Mr Tze urged the court to impose the most lenient sentence possible.
I now consider the six steps as stipulated in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150. According to HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, trafficking in between 10 and 70 grammes of ‘Ice’ should attract a starting point for sentence of 7 to 11 years of imprisonment. This band applies to defendants who are couriers or storekeepers. There is no evidence that the defendant’s role was anything above a courier or storekeeper.
There is 16.08 grammes of ‘Ice’ in this case. On a strict arithmetical basis, the starting point should be one of 7 years 4 months and 26 days. I adopt 7 years and 4 months of imprisonment as the starting point for sentence.
The defendant’s previous convictions for trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking is a serious aggravating factor, and therefore I add 1 year 8 months to the starting point.
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He is entitled to a full one-third discount, thus bringing down the sentence to 6 years’ imprisonment. As indicated, I reject the submission that 3.675 grammes of ‘Ice’ was for his own consumption. There is no other mitigating factors. The defendant is therefore sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment.