COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 129.14 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 125.76 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The facts are not complicated. It is that in the early hours of 24 August 2021 at about 1.25 am, the defendant was seen by police officers walking along Cheung Sha Wan Road with a black bag in his right hand and a grey cross-body bag across his upper body. When he saw the police officers, he turned backwards and walked in the opposite direction. Then, when he saw the police were following him, he started to run. And as he was running he threw the black bag into a flowerbed and then he was intercepted by the police. The defendant put up some struggle and hit the police officer’s shoulder with his right elbow. Eventually, he was subdued.
Inside the black bag which was subsequently retrieved from the flowerbed were found the quantities of the drugs which is the subject matter of the charge. And upon a body search, cash of $13,950 were found on him and also two mobile phones. And when cautioned for the offence, the defendant said he received $120 for helping others to bring ‘Ice’ and that he ran because he had ‘Ice’ on him when he saw the police officers. In a video-recorded interview, the defendant said he was a consumer, a drug addict of ‘Ice’, and that the black bag belonged to him. So the facts are very simple. What is in the defendant’s favour is that he did admit to the offence at the earliest opportunity when he was interviewed under caution.
As far as the defendant’s personal background is concerned as Mr Cheung has pointed out, the defendant is aged 29 now and has had some 20 previous convictions, nine for possession of dangerous drugs and three for trafficking. His last offence was in October 2019 for trafficking in dangerous drugs and was sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment. He had been released in May 2021 which was three months before the present offence.
Again, as in most cases of drug trafficking, the reason for committing this present offence is that he was in financial difficulties. I understand from Mr Cheung that he was not unemployed but was merely an occasional worker on a construction site earning about or less than $10,000 a month.
And three days after his arrest, when he got a drug test at the Correctional Services Department, he tested positive for amphetamine and so Mr Cheung submitted that it shows that he is a drug abuser methamphetamine. And according to the mitigation submissions made by Mr Cheung, the defendant claims he had been a drug addict for over 10 years and that his previous offences for possession of dangerous drugs supported that fact, and he claimed that one-fifth of the drugs were for his own consumption. However, he does not wish to have a Newton hearing on this and he will rely on the fact that he tested positive for amphetamine.
As I said, the defendant’s only mitigation is that he pleaded guilty. As correctly pointed out by Mr Cheung, the sentencing for trafficking in ‘Ice’, the guideline sentencing were laid down in the case of Tam Yi Chun in 2014 where the Court of Appeal said that trafficking between 70 to 300 grammes, the sentence should be in the range of 11 to 15 years’ imprisonment. And in this calculation, this 125.76 grammes, I would adopt a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment after trial.
I will not enhance the sentence because of his record and neither would I give a discount for any of his self-consumption because judging from the quantity and the fact that the defendant is not fully employed and earning less than $10,000 a month, I am not persuaded that he would use a large amount of what he had. He may be persuaded to take a little bit for his own consumption occasionally whilst carrying the drugs but I do not accept that he would take any quantifiable amount. So they cancel each other out. I will neither enhance the sentence nor give a discount.
So taking the 12-year starting point, I give full credit to the defendant for his plea and I will give him the full one-third discount, thus reducing the sentence to one of 8 years’ imprisonment.
So the defendant goes to prison for 8 years.