COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was convicted. He was committed for sentence and today confirms his plea and agreement to the Summary of Facts. The particulars of the two counts are as follows.
On 25 December 2021, in the vicinity of Lee Cheung House, Shun Lee Estate, Sau Mau Ping, Kowloon, he unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 4.82 grammes of a solid containing 4.17 grammes of cocaine, and 1.68 grammes of a solid containing 1.38 grammes of ketamine. Those drugs were found in his bag he was carrying.
The particulars of Count 2 are that on the same day at Room 528 of Lee Cheung House, he unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 133.9 grammes of a solid containing 113.1 grammes of cocaine. Those drugs were found inside his home in a bedroom during a house search immediately after his arrest for the 1st count.
The Summary of Facts are very straight forward. In the evening of 25 December 2021, the police were waiting in the vicinity of Lee Cheung House and watched the defendant park his car and get out. He walked quickly walked towards the entrance of his building, Lee Cheung House. He was intercepted by the police and his handbag searched. They found the drugs of Count 1 in his bag. He was arrested and under caution said that he sold cocaine to others to earn money. He was then immediately taken upstairs to Room 528, his home, for the purposes of a house search. In a drawer under his bed, the police found 10 plastic bags containing the cocaine of the 2nd count. They also found an electronic scale and many empty resealable plastic bags.
Later, in a video-recorded interview, the defendant made a full admission. He was in desperate need of money. Somebody approached him and offered him a large batch of cocaine which he could resell and double his money. He paid this man $100,000 for the cocaine in order to resell it to earn $200,000. He took the cocaine home and repacked it into smaller empty resealable plastic bags using the electronic scale.
On the day of his arrest, he had taken out with him two bags of cocaine to sell but had failed to sell them. He was on his way home when he was arrested. The defendant agrees that the total estimate street value of the cocaine for both charges was $151,032 to $245,223 depending on whether the cocaine was sold as a powder or turned into crack cocaine.
Mitigation
The defendant is now 57 years old, born in Hong Kong, and was living with his girlfriend and young daughter at the time of his arrest. He is not a man with a clear record. He has 12 previous convictions obtained over 10 court appearances with several for possession of dangerous drugs and one for trafficking in dangerous drugs, but it was in 1986.
I have had mitigation from Mr Cheung. I have written mitigation. He has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant. He explained the defendant was unemployed for three months when he was arrested having previously worked as a driver. He had to borrow money to support his family and was tempted by a friend to traffic cocaine, sell cocaine to earn money quickly.
His best mitigation is his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity. I have heard that he has been receiving psychiatric treatment since his remand in custody for moderate depression. I have a seen a letter from the Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Department of Psychiatry. He has been prescribed some medication.
I also have letters from the defendant himself, the defendant’s sister, his girlfriend, and a parish priest of Sacred Heart Church in Sai Kung. The parish priest has known the defendant, his girlfriend and 10-year-old daughter for several years and asks for leniency.
Sentencing
I have considered the approach to the sentence of trafficking dangerous drugs as laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. I have considered the six-step sentencing approaching set out in that authority. In this case, I accept that the defendant was working for himself, a storekeeper and a courier. Therefore, I find his sentence to be determined by the relevant tariff and the quantity of dangerous drugs involved. I use the mathematical approach.
I will add the drugs of both charges together and consider a global starting point. The tariff for trafficking in cocaine follows the tariff for trafficking in heroin, HKSAR v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342.
For this present case, the tariffs follow that laid down in The Queen v Lau Tak Ming & Others [1990] 2 HKLR 370, and where between 50 to 200 grammes is involved, this will attract a sentence of between 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment after trial. In the present case, for the total amount of 117.27 grammes of cocaine seized in both counts, I will adopt a 9-year and 10-month sentence starting point.
There is also 1.38 grammes of ketamine in Count 1 found in his handbag. It is negligible when compared to the amount of cocaine in this case and I do not intend to deal with it. In any event, if I were to convert it to cocaine using the conversion test, the appropriate starting point would be exactly the same, 9 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
I have considered the facts of the case, the drugs of both charges, all mitigation and letters, and the fact the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He is entitled to a full one-third discount. After that discount is applied to the starting point of 9 years and 10 months’ imprisonment the sentence is reduced to 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
Accordingly, defendant, you are sentenced to 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for Charges 1 and 2. Both sentences are to be served concurrently; a total of 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.