On 28 April 2018, at around 12.35 in the afternoon, police officers executed a search warrant at a cubicle flat situated in Shanghai Street, Yau Ma Tei. The defendant was found inside the premises and she was seen trying to hide a toiletry bag from the notice of police officers. Upon search, the relevant dangerous drugs were found inside the toiletry bag.
A notepad was also found inside the bag with, apparently, records of sale of dangerous drugs on it. In the WhatsApp messages retrieved from the defendant’s mobile phone, there were also messages relating to, apparently, relating to sale of dangerous drugs.
The defendant is now 37 years old. She is a Filipino national. She entered Hong Kong as a domestic helper in 2014. Her contract was terminated in 2016 but she remained in Hong Kong and was subsequently convicted of breach of condition of stay in December 2016 for which she was sentenced to an imprisonment term of 6 weeks suspended for 3 years. In other words, at the time of the defendant committing the present offence, it was within the period of her suspended sentence. The defendant is married with four children. All of her children are staying in the Philippines and they are all studying at school.
At the time of the offence, the defendant was staying in Hong Kong by recognisance pending the process of her torture claim. In other words, she is a so-called Form 8 holder.
Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence. The Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing tariff in respect of trafficking in different kind of drugs. For a cocktail trafficking of drugs, the court in considering sentence will either adopt an individual or combined approach. For the present offence, I agree with Mr Richmond, counsel for the defendant, that the appropriate approach is the combined approach in this matter.
Now, taking methamphetamine hydrochloride as the more potent drugs for consideration of sentence and taking into account its quantity with reference to the tariff laid down in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun, the proper starting point for trafficking in ‘Ice’ in this quantity should be 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. I also agree with Mr Richmond that the starting point should be uplifted in consideration of the quantity of the other drugs involved to 11 years’ imprisonment. Furthermore, as the defendant is a Form 8 holder at the time of the offence, the sentence, in my view, should be enhanced a further 9 months to 11 years and 9 months.
I accept that the defendant has pleaded guilty in the earliest opportunity and for that purpose I will give her a full one-third discount. The sentence is therefore reduced from 11 years and 9 months to 7 years and 10 months. The 6 weeks’ imprisonment term suspended should be activated but in consideration of the total sentence, I would order that that 6 weeks’ imprisonment be served concurrently with the present sentence.