CRIMINAL CASE NO. 108 OF 2012
4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134.
Pursuant to section 81B of the Magistrates’ Court Ordinance, Chapter 227, he was committed to this court for sentence. Today before me he has confirmed that plea of guilty and admitted a Summary of Facts in support of the charge.
The particulars of the charge alleged that the defendant, on 20 October 2011, at the staircase on the 15th Floor of Tai Tin House, Pak Tin Estate in Sham Shui Po, trafficked in 13.34 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a drug commonly referred to as “Ice”.
The Summary of Facts reveals that some time after 9 pm on 20 October 2011 the defendant was apprehended by police officers in the staircase referred to in the particulars of the charge. He was at that time holding in his right hand a package which was subsequently determined to be 13.45 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 13.34 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
He was immediately arrested for drug trafficking. He readily admitted at the scene that he was in the process of delivering the drugs. Later in a video-recorded interview he confirmed this and expanded upon it.
He told the police that a person whom he had previously met at the Hei Ling Chau Drug Rehabilitation Centre had recently met up with him. They had remained in contact and that person had only recently asked him to deliver the drugs. He was to collect on behalf of that person $4,800 and was to be paid himself $200 for making the delivery.
On behalf of the defendant today Mr Cheung readily concedes that the primary mitigation available to him is his early plea of guilty. He properly, in my opinion, accepts that there are no other factors relevant to the circumstances of the defendant or the commission of the offence which would permit me to increase the normal discount which is applied when a person pleads guilty.
He has, however, told me something of the defendant’s background. He is 38 years of age, recently separated and has one previous conviction for possession of dangerous drugs in 2009. It was that conviction which led to him being sentenced to be detained at a drug addiction treatment centre.
He was previously by occupation a hairdresser and unfortunately, due to the downturn in his business, he ran into debt and the business was closed.
Through his counsel he expresses remorse for his behaviour on this occasion. Mr Cheung was in possession of information which clearly indicates that this defendant is intent upon rehabilitating himself. That is very much to his credit.
Approaching the question of sentence, I am guided by the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung, reported at [1991] 2 HKLR, page 125.
The Court of Appeal has provided guidance to sentences for setting the starting point for sentence for those who traffic in methamphetamine hydrochloride. I am satisfied, given the quantity of drugs in the instant case that the appropriate starting point for sentence after trial is 7 years’ imprisonment.
Giving full credit to the defendant for his plea of guilty the appropriate sentence is one of 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. That is the sentence that I impose.