COURT: This defendant pleaded guilty at committal to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs; the dangerous drug being methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “ice”. Analysis by the Government Chemist found that the drug was 20.04 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 28.48 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Today the defendant confirmed that plea and confirmed too the facts that he pleaded to at committal.
The facts show that the defendant was stopped and searched as he walked along Boundary Street. From inside the right front pocket of his shorts, the police found a packet of tissues in which were four resealable plastic bags containing suspected dangerous drugs. An electronic scale was found in the same pocket.
The defendant, after caution, admitted that he was delivering the packets for a reward of HK$400 and asked for a chance. The estimated retail value of the drug was HK$19,660.
In a recorded video interview the defendant said that he was carrying the dangerous drug for a man called “Chu Chai” who gave him the drug and instructed him to go to Boundary Street. He was waiting for Chu Chai’s telephone call when he was stopped. The defendant admitted he was trafficking in the dangerous drug.
The antecedents statement put before the court shows that the defendant was 27, born in Hong Kong and educated to form 3 level. He is single and lives with his parents and younger sister. He was unemployed at the time of his arrest, having lost his job about two months before; he had been working as a driver earning HK$10,000 a month.
The defendant claimed that he had been addicted to “ice” since the age of about 17. This would appear to be borne out by his criminal record.
His criminal record starts in 2007 with possession of dangerous drugs. There was a trafficking charge in 2007, in November. I am advised that this was sharing of a drug of a quantity less than 1 gramme and he was sent to DATC. There was another possession of dangerous drugs charge dealt with at the same time.
In 2009 he was convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment; this was in respect of a High Court case. I have seen a transcript of the audio recording of the sentence in that case, which indicates that it was a very similar fact situation to the one that applies in this case. The judge considered increasing the starting point of that charge, but decided in the end not to.
In 2013 there was a further conviction for possession of dangerous drugs and in the same year there was a criminal damage charge conviction for which he was given a 2-week suspended sentence. The suspension was for a 3 year period and the present offence was committed within the period of that suspended sentence.
Counsel for the defendant has put letters before the court; one from the defendant himself and one from his father.
The defendant indicates his remorse and claims he was used by a group of drug dealers who caused him to commit the crime. He promises his family that he will never touch drugs again and acknowledges his realisation that he will receive a higher sentence for this offence.
His father also asks for leniency. He asks the court to consider what he terms as “the young age” of his son. He points out the one who suffers significantly in this matter is the defendant’s grandmother, who is ill. The father says that he himself has heart disease for which he requires treatment. He asks the court to give a lighter sentence.
It appears to me that up to now the defendant has been treated fairly leniently in respect of his offences. The only mitigation of any value in this case is his plea of guilty, which entitles him to a one-third discount.
The guideline sentences for methamphetamine hydrochloride were established in Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung; a quantity between 10 and 70 grammes merits a sentence in the range of 7 to 10 years.
In the instant case, I adopt a starting point of 9 years, taking into account his previous convictions. I discount that by one third and sentence him to 6 years’ imprisonment. As a matter of principle, I order that the suspended sentence be served consecutive to this particular sentence.
That is a sentence of 6 years and 2 weeks’ imprisonment.