The facts are again not complicated. The defendant was seen leaving the building he was living in in Woosung Street. He was intercepted and he told the police that he was living at Room No. 2 of Flat E of this premises on the 2nd floor of the premises.
The defendant was searched and the drugs, which is the subject matter of the 1st charge, was found on him in his trousers pocket, separated into six transparent resealable plastic bags. He also had keys to his premises and cash was found in his trouser pocket, $4,300. Also found on him was a black handbag which contained $70,000 cash and a black mobile phone. Also found on him was cash $10,200 in his wallet. He was arrested and he told police officers that he had these drugs for selling to others.
He was taken back to his home and upon a house search, the drugs, which is the subject matter of the 2nd charge, were found. Also found were electronic scale and a plastic box containing an electronic scale and a pair of pliers and a box of gloves. And inside a red plastic bag were numerous transparent resealable plastic bags of different sizes. And the tenancy agreement was also found, indicating that the defendant is the tenant of those premises.
The defendant was cautioned again and he claimed that the cocaine found was for his own consumption whilst the ‘Ice’ were for selling to others.
He gave a video-recorded interview and he was, I would say, less than truthful in his account. He first said that he had bought the ‘Ice’ from someone called Ming Shuk. Later, he said he was delivering the ‘Ice’ for Ming Shuk. And then subsequently he said that the ‘Ice’ found on his premises were for giving to his friends. So it is very obvious that he was not speaking factually to the police.
Then he claimed that the cash found on him was from his wages and his savings and that he did not deposit money into the bank because he did not know how to deposit money into a bank account. He is a man of 44 and had been in the redecoration industry. And he claimed he was earning about $25,000 a month and that he would save $10,000 a month. And he claimed he had a cocaine habit and that he also took ‘Ice’.
Now, the total amount of cocaine found amounted to an estimated retail value of about HK$34,715. The total street value of the ‘Ice’ found was in the region of HK$396,408.
The defendant is aged 44 and, as Mr Luk said, the only mitigating factor in this case is the fact that he had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity which is an indication of his remorse.
Mr Luk submitted some documents testifying to the fact that he has made charitable donations in the past. Well, that all falls into insignificance against the seriousness of the charge. And Mr Luk said that the defendant admits that all the drugs were for trafficking and no longer, it seems, wants to claim that some of the drugs, cocaine, were for his own consumption.
As far as the drugs is concerned, as Mr Luk correctly pointed out, a large part, more than three quarters of the drugs were methamphetamine hydrochloride and only a small amount was cocaine. So converting all the drugs together into one drug, it would be therefore wise to use the guidelines laid down, sentencing guidelines laid down for methamphetamine hydrochloride. So if one were to add the quantity of drugs in Charge 1 and Charge 2, it would give us a total amount of 637.37 grammes. And following the guidelines for methamphetamine hydrochloride for over 600 grammes, then the Court of Appeal said one should follow the sentencing guideline laid down in Abdallah.
And so considering the guideline, 600 grammes to 1,200 grammes of drugs would give a starting-point sentence of 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment. Mr Luk’s calculation was that it would give a starting-point sentence of 20 years and 1 month. But for the sake of a neater calculation, I would adopt the starting point of 20 years.
I would give the defendant the full one-third discount to reflect his remorse and so the total sentence for the total amount of drugs after the discount would be 13 years and 4 months.
Now, there are two charges in this case. So what I will do is for Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to 6 years’ starting point reduced to 4 years for his plea. The 2nd charge, I will sentence the defendant to 20 years reduced to 13 years 4 months for his plea, and both sentences will be served concurrently.
So the defendant will go to prison for a total of 13 years and 4 months.