The dangerous drugs involved are 27.2 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 26.9 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’. The estimated street value of the drugs involved was HK$14,960.
The defendant was stopped by police officers on 14 May 2018 at around 19.35 pm. He was then at Fai Ming Road, Fanling, New Territories, just downstairs of where he lived. He was searched by the police and the relevant dangerous drugs were found on him in a bag. Defendant was then brought to his residence and an electric weighing scale and 68 empty transparent resealable plastic bags were found in his room.
The defendant is now 26 years old. He is educated up to Form 3 level. He was convicted on three occasions for 14 different offences before. Now, the 14 offences include one possession of dangerous drugs which he was sentenced for a probation order of 18 months in 2008. He was also sentenced to the drug addiction treatment centre in 2011 for the offences of theft and robbery.
In mitigation, Ms Lau, counsel for the defendant, submitted that the defendant wanted to earn more money in order to satisfy his demanding girlfriend and also to purchase a flat. Ms Lau also submitted that the defendant is now very remorseful and he wanted to turn a new leaf to his life after release from the prison for this offence.
Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence. A person committed this offence will inevitably face a long term of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal had laid down different sentencing tariff in respect of different kinds of dangerous drugs. For trafficking in ‘Ice’, in sentencing, the court should follow the tariff laid down by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun. In the tariff laid down in Tam Yi Chun, for trafficking in a quantity of 10 to 70 grammes of ‘Ice’, the appropriate starting point for sentence should be 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment. The heavy sentence imposed for this kind of offence is for the purpose of deterrence. Usual mitigation like personal circumstances or financial situation are not valid mitigating factors.
In the present case, I can see no reason to depart from the tariff laid down by the Court of Appeal, and there is no valid mitigating factors for reduction of sentence. Applying the tariff laid down in Tam Yi Chun, for the quantity of ‘Ice’ involved in this matter, the proper starting point should be 8 years’ imprisonment. Giving a full one-third discount for the defendant’s guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.