HKSAR v. Mahabul Alam Khan

HCCC 119/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 119 OF 2015

-----------------

------------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant was convicted after trial of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, the background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. On 14 August 2014, shortly after midnight, the defendant was stopped by police officers at the staircase inside a building. When the defendant was searched, a bunch of four keys was found on him. Then the defendant was taken to the 2nd floor. With the keys found on the defendant, entry was gained into the unit at Room A. Inside the room, 454.73 grammes of a solid and 13.78 grammes of a power containing 238.57 grammes of cocaine were found inside a refrigerator.

I was told that the defendant is 46 years old, he was born in Bangladesh. In mitigation, learned counsel for the defence, Mr Andrews, informed the court that the defendant came from a good family. The defendant has started his study in a university in Bangladesh but left in the second year, then he ran his business both in Korea and Malaysia. In 2006, the defendant came to Hong Kong via China and had since then been staying here He has lodged a non-refoulement claim. The defendant is drug-dependent and Mr Andrews informed the court that what the dependant abused was cannabis. He also informed the court that this drug abuse was the cause of the defendant’s several previous conviction of possession of a dangerous drug. The defendant’s family was still in Bangladesh. Mr Andrews asked for leniency on behalf of the defendant.

The narcotic content of the dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was of a total of 238.57 grammes. The Court of Appeal held in AG v Pedro Neil Rojas [1994] 2 HKCLR 69, that in a case of trafficking in cocaine the guidelines in The Queen v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370, is applicable since the narcotic content of the two drugs are very closely alike in the degree of harm. In Lau Tak Ming, a sentence of 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment was suggested for a case of trafficking in heroin if the narcotic content is between 200 and 400 grammes.

Having considered the whole circumstances, in my judgment a starting point of 13 years is appropriate. It is a conviction after trial. Having regard to what learned counsel for the defence said on behalf of the defendant, I do not think any deduction in sentence is justified. On the other hand, there is no aggravating feature which calls for an enhancement in sentence, despite one of the criminal conviction record of possession of dangerous drugs was in relation to ‘Ice’.

For the above said reasons, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 13 years’ imprisonment.