Mr John P Marray, instructed by Chong, So & Co
HCCC 243/2010
HCCC243/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 243 OF 2010
-----------------
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording of the Sentence in the above Case
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to S4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
On the material date, the defendant was intercepted by police officers outside his residence. 18.53 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride was found on him. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was asked by ‘Ah Fai’ to deliver the drugs to Sham Shui Po MTR Station. In return, he would be given $1,000. The defendant is 50 years of age, unemployed and lives on Comprehensive Social Benefit. He has total of 28 previous convictions which include one similar trafficking in a dangerous drug record. Guidelines on sentencing are clear. The starting point for trafficking in 10 to 70 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride is in the band of 7 to 10 years’ imprisonment. Given the quantity involved and the defendant’s past similar record, I am of the view that the appropriate starting point in this case is one of 7½ years’ imprisonment. The defendant will be given the usual one-third discount for his plea. He is therefore sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment.
On the material date, the defendant was intercepted by police officers outside his residence. 18.53 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride was found on him. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was asked by ‘Ah Fai’ to deliver the drugs to Sham Shui Po MTR Station. In return, he would be given $1,000.
The defendant is 50 years of age, unemployed and lives on Comprehensive Social Benefit. He has total of 28 previous convictions which include one similar trafficking in a dangerous drug record.
Guidelines on sentencing are clear. The starting point for trafficking in 10 to 70 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride is in the band of 7 to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Given the quantity involved and the defendant’s past similar record, I am of the view that the appropriate starting point in this case is one of 7½ years’ imprisonment. The defendant will be given the usual one-third discount for his plea.
He is therefore sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment.