At about 2320 hours on 10 September 2018, the defendant was intercepted for investigation by the police on the 4th Floor of No 23A Lock Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon. The defendant indicated that his identity document was placed inside Flat 4C on the same floor. The defendant was brought back to the said Flat C. Upon search of the flat, it was found under the lower deck of a bunker bed a plastic box containing the relevant drugs together with an electronic weighing scale and many empty transparent resealable plastic bags and also the defendant’s Form 8 recognisance.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted to the police that the relevant drugs were purchased by him from others.
The defendant is now 32 years old. He is a Form 8 holder from Bangladesh. He has no criminal conviction record in Hong Kong. In mitigation Mr McGowan, counsel for the defendant, submitted that the defendant committed the present offence because the defendant’s mother needed money for hospital treatment. The defendant was recruited by a notorious drug trafficker to earn money for his mother’s expenses and the defendant still owes the drug trafficker HK$5,000. The defendant is prepared to testify against that person if that person is prosecuted. The police has, in a letter to the court, confirmed that the person named is a known suspect.
Mr McGowan submitted that although the defendant did not give useful information to the police, the defendant has shown his willingness to help and that merits some reward. Mr McGowan also submitted a letter by Father John confirming that the person is a person heavily involved in drug trafficking to his knowledge. Father John also said that the person is not prosecuted because he is an informer of the police. However, as stated repeatedly by the Court of Appeal in Yeung Hoi Ting and Kilima, the sentencing court will not be drawn into debate with the authority concerned and futile wrangling between defence and prosecution as to whether information was or was not of any actual or potential assistance, how it was treated or not -- or how it should have been treated.
For consideration of sentencing in this case, I will accept the position of the police that no useful assistance or potential useful assistance has been given by the defendant but given the special circumstances in this case as explained by Father John, I would give a reduction of sentence for the defendant’s willingness to testify against the suspected person.
Now there are different kinds of dangerous drugs involved in this case. For the quantity of ‘Ice’ involved, namely just over 10 grammes of ‘Ice’, applying the tariff laid down in Tam Yi Chun, the starting point for sentencing should be 7 years’ imprisonment. For the cannabis and MDMA involved in this case, I would just add a further 6 months’ imprisonment to the starting point.
Regarding the enhancement of sentence for the defendant being a Form 8 holder, I accept that the appropriate enhancement should be a term of 6 months’ imprisonment. Therefore, the total sentence before taking into account the defendant’s guilty plea should be a term of 8 years’ imprisonment.
Giving a full discount for the defendant’s guilty plea, the sentence should be reduced to 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. As I have mentioned before, I will give a further reduction of sentence because of the special circumstances I mentioned. The sentence is further reduced to 5 years’ imprisonment.