The relevant drug involved in the 1st charge is 0.68 gramme of a solid containing 0.54 gramme of cocaine. Regarding the 2nd charge, the relevant drugs involved are 109.8 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 109.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 3.44 grammes of cannabis in herbal form, 2.27 grammes of a solid containing 1.86 grammes of cocaine and 7.63 grammes of a solid containing 5.87 grammes of ketamine.
The overall value of the relevant drug amount to approximately HK$70,000.
The defendant was stopped by a police officer on 16 April 2019 in odd hours when, he was walking towards his car in Cheung Sha Wan on Po On Road. The police officers conducted a search on the defendant, and the drugs in relation to the 1st charge was found inside the pocket of the defendant’s coat. The police officer then conducted a search on the defendant’s vehicle, and the drugs involved in relation to the 2nd charge were found inside his car.
The defendant is 33 years old. He was educated up to Form 5 level. He was unemployed at the time of his arrest but he was a driver earning approximately $30,000 per month some time ago. The defendant is a divorced person. He has a son and a daughter. But according to the defendant who has written a letter to this court, his wife has robbed his daughter away from his home.
Now, trafficking in dangerous drug is a very serious offence. Those who are convicted of this offence must face a lengthy term of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has laid down tariff for sentencing in respect of different kinds of drugs. The tariff laid down by the Court of Appeal for sentence is for deterrent purpose, and therefore usual mitigation such as clear record and financial difficulties are not valid reasons for reduction of sentence.
In this case, in respect of Charge 2, the trafficking activity of the defendant involved a cocktail of drugs. The Court of Appeal has laid down principles for arriving at the proper starting point in this situation. Ms Lam, counsel for the defendant, applying the relevant principles, helpfully performed the absurdity test, conversion test and ratio test to arrive at different starting points for this court’s consideration. Ms Lam urged this court to adopt the result as calculated under the ratio test as it is the lowest starting point amongst the three different tests.
As pointed out by Ms Lam, the facts of this case are serious. The defendant has trafficked a variety of dangerous drugs which is itself an aggravating factor. However, the defendant has pleaded guilty at an early stage and as can be seen from the two letters written by the defendant himself and particularly the one from his mother show that the defendant is now very remorseful, and the mother is present in court to give support to the defendant.
In the circumstances, I would accede to Ms Lam’s submission to adopt the result of the ratio test as the starting point. For Charge 1, the relevant drugs involved are rather nominal. I will adopt a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. For Charge 2, I will adopt a starting point of 135 months’ imprisonment.
Taking into account the defendant’s guilty plea, the sentence for Charge 1 is reduced to 12 months’ imprisonment. For Charge 2, the sentence is reduced to 90 months’ imprisonment. And I am of the view that an imprisonment of 90 months can rightly reflect the criminality of this offence, and therefore I order that the sentence for the two charges be run concurrently.