The relevant drugs involved in the 1st charge, namely, trafficking in dangerous drugs in relation to both defendants is 139.5 grammes of a mixture containing 92.5 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. Regarding the 2nd charge, namely, the possession of dangerous drugs charge, the relevant drug is 4 grammes of a solid containing 3.65 grammes of cocaine.
The estimated value of the heroin seized is approximately just over HK$120,000 and the value of the cocaine is approximately HK$4,800.
In the afternoon of the 1 August 2018, while conducting an anti-narcotics operation at Sai Yee Street, Mong Kok, police officers found the 1st and 2nd defendant together with another female acting suspiciously inside a restaurant. The police officers stopped the 1st and 2nd defendant, and upon search, a black plastic bag containing five packets containing the relevant heroin were found inside the 1st defendant’s bag. Upon search of the 2nd defendant, a car key of a private vehicle with license plate TD8921 was found. The said vehicle was later searched and the relevant drugs involved in relation to the 2nd charge were found inside four different bags.
The CCTV of the restaurant captured that the 1st and the 2nd defendant and the female sat together at the relevant time. The 2nd defendant went to another table and chatted with an unknown male. He then came back to his own table and put a black object into the 1st defendant’s bag. The 1st defendant was looking at the object and helping the 2nd defendant to put the object into his bag.
The 1st and 2nd defendant now admit that the heroin seized was for the purpose unlawful trafficking.
For the 1st defendant, Ms Mohamed, counsel for the 1st defendant, helpfully summarised his background in a written mitigation. The defendant is 26 years old, educated up to Form 1 level. After leaving school, he studied at Vocational Training Centre for hair stylist course. After finishing training, he went to work at McDonald’s and after leaving McDonald’s, he went to work as a hair stylist in Kwai Chung. At the time of the arrest, the defendant was unemployed. The defendant have been living away from home and was living with his friends for a while. The defendant’s father is 56 years old, unemployed. His mother is 46 years old, working as a cleaner and he has a 16 year-old sister, who is now studying in Form 3.
Ms Mohamed also handed in three mitigation letters on behalf of the 1st defendant. One written by the defendant himself, another was written by the defendant’s parents and his sister, and the third one is written by Deacon Peter Wong. The defendant’s family members and also Deacon Peter Wong ask this court to pass a lenient sentence to the defendant and the parents are in this court this morning to support the 1st defendant.
In his mitigation, the defendant said he is now very sorry and he feels like he has lost his sister as he(she?) has not come to visit him since his arrest. He heard from his mother that since his arrest his father has been to hospital and has an operation for appendicitis. He understands that there are tariffs but hope that the court would adopt a lower starting point.
Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence. People committed this offence will inevitably face with a long term imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing tariff in respect of different kind of dangerous drugs. For trafficking in heroin, this court should consider the case R v Lau Tak Ming in considering starting point for trafficking in heroin. According to the tariff laid down in Lau Tak Ming, for trafficking in a quantity of heroin between 50 and 200 grammes, the appropriate starting point for sentencing should be 8 years to 12 years’ imprisonment. In respect of Charge 1 in the present case, the relevant heroin involved is in a quantity of 92.5 grammes and applying the said sentencing tariff, the starting point should be over 9 years’ imprisonment.
For the 2nd defendant, he is now 47 years old. He was educated up to Form 1 level. He has some criminal records but unrelated to trafficking in dangerous drugs. He is married. He has no children. He has with him the parents and two elder sisters. The two elder sisters are 47 and 49 years old respectively.
Mr Woon, counsel for the 2nd defendant, handed up five mitigation letters on behalf of the 2nd defendant. They are respectively written by the defendant himself, the defendant’s father, the defendant’s wife, his elder sister and also his cousin. They all said that the defendant is now very remorseful and ask this court to pass him a lenient sentence. They also support to the 2nd defendant and the defendant’s wife is in court supporting him this morning.
As I said, trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence and for this quantity of heroin, the starting point to be adopted should be over 9 years’ imprisonment. In the present case, apart from the family support, I can see no other factors that this court should consider relevant. As I said in relation to the 1st charge, the appropriate starting point should be over 9 years’ imprisonment. In view of the support from family, I would adopt the starting point of 9 years’ imprisonment in this case. Both defendants have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, I would accord with them the full one-third discount and the sentence be therefore reduced to 6 years’ imprisonment.
For the 2nd charge, I would adopt a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment. Taking into account the 2nd defendant’s plea of guilty, the sentence be reduced to 6 months’ imprisonment.
Considering the totality of sentence, I will order that the sentence for the 2nd defendant for the 2nd charge, 3 months of the sentence to be run consecutively to the 1st charge, making a total of 6 years and 3 months.