COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate for two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was committed before me for sentence.
The offences were committed on 11 November 2015. The defendant was intercepted by police officers outside the 2nd floor of Winland Building in Yuen Long. He was searched on his body and 75 resealable bags containing 14.64 grammes of a solid containing 14.21 grammes of cocaine were found inside his pocket. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was selling the cocaine to make profits because he was in debt.
The police conducted a search at the defendant’s home, in his bedroom, later, and found a bag containing 20 resealable bags of 3.9 grammes of a solid containing 3.81 grammes of cocaine and 276 bags of 193 grammes of a powder containing 167 grammes of ketamine. Besides 150 empty resealable bags, a plastic spoon and an electronic scale were also found in his room. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he intended to sell ketamine and cocaine for profits and he used the scale and spoon to package the drugs.
In the video-recorded interview, the defendant further admitted that he bought the cocaine at a price of HK$9,000 and he would repackage the drugs into 0.23 grammes per packet for selling. He can make a profit of HK$15,000 from selling the cocaine. At the time he was arrested, he was delivering the cocaine to others.
The retail market values of the seized cocaine and ketamine was respectively HK$19,931 and HK$24,125.
The defendant is 24 years old. He has a clear record. He is single and educated up to form 6 level. At the time of his arrest, he was unemployed. He has worked as a part-time salesman and warehouse worker before he was unemployed. He has been a triad member since 2010. He was living together with his family members including his parents, his elder brother and sister-in-law and his elder sister and brother-in-law.
In mitigation, Mr Chan, counsel for the defendant, submitted that the defendant committed the present offence out of a foolish reason. His old friend, Ah Ching, was in heavy debts due to gambling. The deb was as much as HK$180,000 and the defendant borrowed the money from different financial institutes to help his friend. As he was unable to repay his debt, the defendant was tempted to traffic drugs by someone. His debts were repaid by his family members after he was arrested. The defendant himself has written to this court, saying that he committed the offence due to his heavy debt. He asked for this court’s leniency and promised that he will not commit the offence again.
Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence and the Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guidelines in respect of trafficking in different kinds of drugs. In the case R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370, for trafficking a quantity of up to 10 grammes of cocaine, the sentencing range should be a term of 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment. For trafficking in a quantity of 10 to 50 grammes of cocaine, the sentencing range should be a term of 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment. In HKSAR v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, for trafficking a quantity of 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, the sentencing range should be a term of 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment.
The heavy sentence for drug trafficking offences is for deterrent purpose. Factors such as young age, clear record and financial hardship can carry little weight in mitigation. In the present case, I can see no valid mitigating factors apart from the defendant’s plea of guilty.
For the 1st charge, the quantity of drugs involved is 14.21 grammes of cocaine. Applying the tariff in Lau Tak Ming, the proper starting point for sentence should be 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
Taking into account the defendant’s plea of guilty, the defendant is sentenced for a term of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for the 1st charge.
For the 2nd charge, that involved two different kinds of drugs. As submitted by Mr Chan, the proper approach to take in the present case is the combined approach. As ketamine is the more significant drug here, the tariff under Hii Siew Cheng should be adopted for consideration of the sentence. With this approach, the proper starting point for sentence for the 2nd charge should be 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
Taking into account the defendant’s plea of guilty, the defendant is sentenced for a term of 5 years’ imprisonment for the 2nd charge.
As submitted by Mr Chan, this court should consider the totality principle in arriving at the overall sentence. If all the drugs involved for the two charges are to be taken into account and using the combined approach, the total quantity for consideration would be 185 grammes. Adopting the tariff under Hii Siew Cheng, the proper starting point for sentence should be 7 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
After taking into account the defendant’s guilty plea, the sentence in addition to the sentence of the 2nd charge will be insignificant.
In the circumstances, I order that the sentence of the 1st charge and the sentence of the 2nd charge are to be served concurrently, making a total of 5 years’ imprisonment.