The 2nd charge, he is charged jointly with the 2nd accused for possession of a dangerous drug, namely 0.86 gramme of a crystalline solid containing 0.82 gramme of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a salt of methamphetamine. They have been committed to this court for sentencing.
The case Summary of Facts reveal that on 20 June 2020, the police were conducting anti-narcotics operation in the Yau Ma Tei area. On that day, in the afternoon, the 2nd accused was intercepted when she accessed Room 302 of the Bridal Tea House Hotel. Around the same time, police also raided Room 412 of the Silka Seaview Hotel in Shanghai Street and found the 1st accused inside.
Inside this hotel room in which the 1st accused was found were found the drugs which are the subject matter of Charge 1. Also found inside that room was an electronic scale and a number of transparent resealable plastic bags. Also found with the 1st accused were key cards to access the rooms in the Silka Seaview Hotel and also in the Bridal Tea House Hotel. Cash of over $18,000 were found and there were also four mobile phones with it.
In the Bridal Tea House Hotel, there were found the drugs which is the subject matter of Charge 2, an electronic scale and a lighter. The 1st accused was arrested and cautioned and he made video-recorded interviews and statements in which he admitted the offences.
As far as the 2nd accused was concerned, she also had made admissions to the police after caution. She said that the drugs found in the room were for both herself and the 1st accused’s consumption.
The estimated street value of the drugs found with the 1st accused was in the region of $16,352, and the street value of the drugs is estimated to be about $550 for the drugs found in the room which is location 2, the Bridal Tea House Hotel.
The 1st accused has a previous record but none of them were for possession of dangerous drugs for trafficking, and as Mr Grounds pointed out, these offences were committed when he was still a teenager.
In mitigation, Mr Grounds explained the effect of the unfortunate background of the 1st accused. It is sad but it is one of those stories where the child was neglected and did not receive the proper care from parents. He then subsequently became a hairdresser, and I am informed by Mr Grounds in his submission that that was when he fell into drugs.
He is now aged 29 and he has managed during his time in custody to get rid of his drug addiction, and I am informed by Mr Grounds that he is determined to turn over a new leaf once he is released from prison, and this is reflected in the fact that he had, as Father Wotherspoon said, written a letter for Father Wotherspoon to put in his blog in the campaign against drugs.
As Mr Grounds properly said, the Court of Appeal has already laid down guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs, and for the case of ‘Ice’, the guidelines laid down in Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691 for trafficking between 10 to 70 grammes of ‘Ice’ would merit a sentence of between 7 to 11 years after trial. It was worked out by Mr Grounds that therefore it would give a starting-point sentence in this case in Charge 1 of 8 years.
However, I do accept that the defendant was a drug addict at the time and would take a little bit of the amount unsold for his own consumption and for the consumption of the 2nd accused. So I will reduce the starting point to 7½ years. So that will take into account the little amount that he would use for his and the 2nd accused’s consumption, also take into account the fact that he has demonstrated his full remorse as well in co-operating with Father Wotherspoon’s campaign against drugs.
The 7½-year starting point will be reduced by one-third because of his early plea. So that will reduce the sentence to 5 years’ imprisonment.
Now as far as the 2nd charge is concerned, it is a fact that the courts recognise that for possession of dangerous drugs would be anywhere from 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment. But having said that, one has also to look at the actual amount that was found and all the background in relation to this particular case. So I will adopt a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment and reduce it to 6 months and that I accept Mr Grounds’s point that it was part of the drugs in fact that was in Charge 1 which he took for his own consumption together with the 2nd defendant. So I will make this sentence concurrent to the sentence in Charge 1.
As for the 2nd accused, she had pleaded guilty as early as possible in the Magistrates’ Court to the 2nd count of possession of dangerous drugs jointly with the 1st accused. When she was arrested for this offence, she had a clear record. But after she was granted bail for this offence, she committed another offence of possession of dangerous drugs for which she was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment in August 2021, and I am informed by Ms Mohamed that on that occasion, before she was sentenced, the learned magistrate had called for a DATC report and she was found unsuitable for DATC.
Ms Mohamed also made the point in her submissions that it may be a futile exercise to call for a DATC report in this case basically because the 2nd defendant is here under a Form 8, temporary Form 8, recognisance form and she is subject to a deportation order. So the DATC report will not find her suitable for detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre because the officers will not be able to conduct the after-detention service. I agree with Ms Mohamed that there is therefore no point in calling for a DATC report in this case.
This is certainly not a case where a fine will be appropriate. Ms Mohamed urges for a suspended sentence because the 2nd defendant is pregnant, five months pregnant, and she wishes to return to the Philippines as soon as possible. I do not, on these facts, consider a suspended sentence to be an appropriate sentence.
So I will adopt a starting-point sentence as for the 1st accused of 9 months and reduce it to 6 months because of her plea. So she will go to prison for 6 months.