HKSAR v. Chu Hoi Ling and Another

DCCC 705/2024

[2025] HKDC 824

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 705 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.Before me, D1 and D2 jointly face 4 charges on a Charge Sheet as follows.

2.Charge 1 is Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  Particulars are that they, on 6 February 2024, at 19^th Floor, Sand Martin House, Sha Kok Estate, Sha Tin, New Territories, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 0.58 gramme of a solid containing 0.51 gramme of cocaine.

3.Charge 2 is Trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  Particulars are that they, on the same date, at Room 1907, Sand Martin House aforesaid, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 20.60 grammes of a solid containing 18.12 grammes of cocaine and 1.47 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.46 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

4.Charge 3 is Possession of apparatuses fit and intended for the smoking or inhalation of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 36(1)  and (2)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  Particulars are that they, on the same date, at Room 1907 aforesaid, in Hong Kong, had in their possession apparatuses, namely two inhaling devices, fit and intended for the smoking or inhalation of a dangerous drug, namely methamphetamine.

5.Charge 4 is Possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 8(1)(a)  and (2)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  Particulars are that they, on the same date, at Room 1907 aforesaid, in Hong Kong, had in their possession a dangerous drug, namely 97 millilitres of a liquid upon drying contain 0.58 gramme of a solid containing 0.38 gramme of methamphetamine.

6.D1 pleaded guilty to all 4 charges.  D2 pleaded guilty to Charges 3 and 4 but not guilty to Charges 1 and 2.

7.Prosecution asked that Charges 1 and 2 as against D2 be left on court file not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal.  I so ordered.

Facts admitted by D1 and D2

8.On 6 February 2024, at around 1625 hours, D1 left the flat (“the Flat”)  known as Room 1907, Sand Martin House, Sha Kok Estate, Shatin.  Police officers nearby intercepted her.

9.Upon search, one tissue paper containing 2 transparent resealable plastic bags containing 0.58 gramme of a solid containing 0.51 gramme of cocaine (E1)  was found in D1’s right hand.  Two mobile phones were seized from D1.

10.D1 was arrested for “Trafficking in a dangerous drug”.  Under caution, D1 admitted she sold dangerous drug to earn money for the purpose of raising her children and she asked for a second chance.

11.D2 was inside the Flat.  Upon search of the kitchen of the Flat, the police found and sezied:

From on top of the kitchen wardrobe

(a)  A white container containing 24 transparent resealable plastic bags containing a total of 3.17 grammes of a solid containing 2.62 grammes of cocaine (E2);

(b)  One transparent resealable plastic bag containing 3 transparent resealable plastic bags containing a total of 0.84 gramme of a solid containing 0.73 gramme of cocaine (E3);

(c)  17 transparent resealable plastic bags containing a total of 4.81 grammes of a solid containing 4.22 grammes of cocaine (E4);

(d)  One transparent resealable plastic bag containing 22 transparent resealable plastic bags containing a total of 6.25 grammes of a solid containing 5.50 grammes of cocaine (E5);

(e)  One transparent resealable plastic bag containing 0.63 gramme of a crystalline solid containing 0.63 gramme of methamphetamine hydrochloride (E6);

(f)  One transparent resealable plastic bag containing 0.84 gramme of a crystalline solid containing 0.83 gramme of methamphetamine hydrochloride (E7);

(g)  One green glass bottle inserted with (i)  one plastic straw/one segment of plastic tube and (ii)  one glass tube, containing 27 millilitres of a liquid, which upon drying, was found to contain 0.21 gramme of a solid containing 0.14 gramme of methamphetamine (E9);

(h)  One silver plastic bottle (with a metal tube)  inserted with (i)  one glass tube with one end shaped as a bulb and (ii)  one plastic straw, containing 70 millilitres of a liquid, which upon drying, was found to contain 0.37 gramme of a solid containing 0.24 gramme of methamphetamine (E10);

(i)  One lighter and one plier and one clamp; and

(j)  Cash of $400.

From inside the left cabinet of the kitchen wardrobe

(k)  One transparent resealable plastic bag containing 5.53 gramnmes of a solid containing 5.05 grammes of cocaine (E8); and

(l)  3 measuring cups.

From inside the right cabinet of the kitchen wardrobe

(m)  One black electronic scale; and

(n)  3 plastic bags containing multiple empty transparent resealable plastic bags.

12.D1 was further arrested for “Trafficking in dangerous drugs”.  Under caution, D1 admitted she sold the dangerous drugs for the purpose of improving the living standard of her children.

13.Next, D1 was arrested for “Possession of apparatuses fit and intended for the inhalation of dangerous drug” regarding E9-10.  Under caution, D1 admitted the drug-inhaling apparatuses were for her self-consumption use.

14.Upon search of D2, one mobile phone was seized from him.  At around 1738 hours, D2 was arrested for “Possession of apparatuses fit and intended for the inhalation of dangerous drug” regarding E9-10.

15.In total, E1-8 are 69 plastic bags containing 21.18 grammes of a solid containing 18.63 grammes of cocaine (ie E1-5 & 8)  and 2 plastic bags containing containing 1.47 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.46 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (ie E6-7).

16.The estimated street value of the seized dangerous drugs is around $28,189.83.

17.During D1’s cautioned VRI conducted in the small hours of 7 February 2024, she stated:

(a)  She resided in the Flat with D2; she was going to deliver the seized cocaine E1 on 6 February 2024;

(b)  She knew what the seized dangerous drugs were and where they were placed inside the Flat; the two seized inhaling apparatuses (ie E9-10)  were for her self-consumption of methamphetamine;

(c)  The mobile phone with a ‘Hello Kitty’ phone case seized from her was used for Whatsapp communication with her drug trafficking boss; she roughly received around 12 grammes of cocaine from her boss each time;

(d)  Her boss gave instructions on the time, place, and method of delivery of dangerous drugs to the customer(s); D1 usually took taxi; the customers would either pay cash to D1 or pay directly to her boss via FPS or Alipay;

(e)  Each plastic bag of dangerous drug would be sold for around $200 to $300; she would receive around $80 to $100 as reward for each bag sold;

(f)  On 6 February 2024, at about 0700 hours, in Tsz Wan Shan, an unknown male gave her about 30-40 transparent resealable plastic bags of about 12 grammes of cocaine; and

(g)  The cash of $400 seized was crime proceeds.

18.During D2’s cautioned VRI conducted in the small hours on 7 February 2024, he stated that he was residing in the Flat with D1 and her daughter.

19.D1’s DNA was detected on E9 and D2’s DNA was detected on E10.

20.D1 now admits that she had E1 to E8 in her possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

21.D1 and D2 now admit that they had joint possession of the dangerous drug methamphetamine in E9-10, which were inhaling devices fit and intended for the smoking or inhalation of a dangerous drug, namely methamphetamine.

Criminal records

22.D1 has one previous conviction of possession of dangerous drug in 2013.

23.D2 has 6 previous convictions, 4 of which are similar.

Antecedents

24.D1 is aged 34 (33 at the time of the offences), educated to F5 level, has previously been a salesperson until 2021.  D1 lived in public housing in Shatin with her daughter (15)  whose father has broken up with D1.  D1 also has a son (3)  with D2 and this child is being taken care of by a foster family.

25.D2 is aged 37 (36 at the time of the offences), educated to F5 level, unemployed since 2020.  D2 was living with D1 and D1’s daughter in public housing in Shatin.  D1 and D2 have a son (3)  within their relationship.

Mitigation

D1

26.Mr Terry Kan of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D1.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

27.D1 pleaded guilty.  She is remorseful.  She promises not to re-offend. She asks the court to give her a chance.  Apart from a daughter, she also has a son (14)  with the same ex-boyfriend.  She wishes to leave prison sooner so she could take care of the afore-mentioned daughter and son.

28.During remand in custody, she took 4 Christian courses and passed the exams (certificates submitted).  She also took two English courses organized by CUSCS (records submitted).  D1 wishes to equip herself more so that she could contribute to society when released.

29.For Charges 1 and 2, Mr Kan admitted in court on behalf of D1 that her role was an actual/direct trafficker.

30.Mr Kan reminded the court of the six-step approach of sentencing in drug trafficking cases set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and further elaborated in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186. One of the salient features of this sentencing approach is the moving away from a rigid arithmetical approach, with starting points and sentences based purely on narcotic content, to a more discretionary approach involving an assessment of the defendant’s role and culpability.  However, the quantity of the dangerous drug involved remains the primary determinant in sentencing.

31.For Charge 1, the drug was 0.51 gramme of cocaine.

32.Cocaine and heroin are equated for sentencing purposes and the tariffs fixed for heroin in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 apply to cocaine.  This was confirmed in AG v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342. For the quantity of 0.51 gramme of cocaine, the relevant guideline band is up to 10 grammes for which the sentence is between 2 and 5 years’ imprisonment.

33.For Charge 1, on a strictly arithmetical approach, 0.51 gramme of cocaine would attract a starting point of 2 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.

34.For Charge 2, the drugs were 18.12 grammes of cocaine and 1.46 grammes of ICE.  For the quantity of 18.12 grammes of cocaine, the relevant guideline band is 10 to 50 grammes for which the sentence is between 5 and 8 years’ imprisonment.

35.The starting point for up to 10 grammes of ICE falls within the band of 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment (HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691).

36.For Charge 2, on a strict arithmetical approach, 18.12 grammes of cocaine would attract a starting point of 5 years and 7 months’ imprisonment; and 1.46 grammes of ICE would attract a starting point of 3 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

37.Mr Kan invited the court to add the 0.51 gramme of cocaine from Charge 1 to the 18.12 grammes of cocaine from Charge 2.  Reason is that Charge 1 was part and parcel of Charge 2 in the present case.  Total quantity of cocaine added up to 18.63 grammes.

38.In the case of HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817 at para 39, there were lengthy discussions on both the individual approach and combined approach.  It was submitted that in the circumstances of this case, the combined approach is to be preferred.

39.In HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013, three tests were laid down to calculate the combined starting points and to cross-check the sentence by the three tests, namely, absurdity test, conversion test and ratio test, so that the ultimate sentence will be within range.

40.Using the three tests, Mr Kan obtained the following results:-

(a)  Absurdity test – 5 years 9 months (ie 69 months)  for 20.09 grammes of cocaine; 7 years 8 months (ie 92 months)  for 20.09 grammes of ICE;

(b)  Conversion test – 6 years 2 months (ie 74 months)  for 7.96 grammes (converted + actual)  of ICE; and

(c)  Ratio test – 92 x 7.27% (ICE)  plus 69 x 92.73% (Cocaine)  = 70.7 months.

41.Mr Kan submits that it would not be wrong to take a starting point of 70 months for Charge 2, and to order the sentence on Charge 1 to run wholly concurrently with that on Charge 2.

42.The next step is to assess the defendant’s role and culpability.  The guidelines are based on the courier or storekeeper ie the person who was delivering, distributing, or conveying the drugs in question for a dealer; or storing the consignment of drugs on behalf of himself or someone else (see para 59 of Herry Jane Yusuph).

43.It was admitted by Mr Kan that D1 in this case was an actual/direct trafficker.

44.Mr Kan suggested adding 2 months to the starting point to reflect the above factor and the fact that two different kinds of drugs were trafficked in.

45.It was submitted that there were no other aggravating factors in this case.

46.Mr Kan reminded the court that as far as mitigating factors are concerned, personal circumstances generally count for little for this offence.

47.Mr Kan also reminded the court to take into account totality before determining the sentence for Charge 2.

48.For Charge 3, it was submitted that a sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment after a plea of guilty (4 ½ months as starting point)  would be usual (see R v Law Sing, HCMA 890/1996).

49.For Charge 4, the dangerous drug was 0.38 gramme of ICE.

50.It was submitted that a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment would reflect the criminality of Charge 4 (see HKSAR v Muhammad Ali Pahat, HCMA 342/2022).

51.D1 pleaded guilty to the charges entitling her to 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are also some special circumstances on paper which, subject to the court’s acceptance, might entitle D1 to a sentencing discount of 40-45% (inclusive of the 1/3 aforesaid).

52.Upon consideration of the totality principle, Mr Kan asks that the sentences on Charges 1 and 2 be made to run concurrently.  He further asks for the same treatment as regards Charges 3 and 4.  He asks that a small proportion not exceeding half of the sentences on Charges 3 and 4 be made to run consecutively to the sentences on Charges 1 and 2.

D2

53.Ms Rachel Po of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D2.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

54.D2 previously lived with D1 and her daughter.  D1 and D2 have a son who is under the care of Social Welfare Department.  D2 now lives with his parents (both over 60), who provide emotional and financial support to D2.

55.Formerly a construction worker earning $18,000 monthly, D2 faced reduced work and layoffs following Covid-19 outbreak in 2020.  In 2023, he experienced chronic bladder pain and frequent urination, exacerbating stress leading to a relapse into drugs.

56.On the night before the offences, D2 was preoccupied with video games until the early hours of 6 February 2024, after which he fell asleep.  He recalled D1 briefly leaving the flat and then returning.  D2 awoke when police arrived and only then became aware of the drugs during the kitchen search.

57.D2 expresses remorse for his actions.  He aspires to be a responsible father to his son and a supportive figure to D1’s teenage daughter.  D2’s parents are supportive to him.

58.D2 has sought medical treatment for his bladder condition while on remand.

59.Since his release on bail on 8 April 2025, D2 said he has remained drug-free, demonstrating a genuine commitment to rehabilitation.

60.For Charge 3, R v Law Sing [1996] 4 HKC 477 established a 3-month imprisonment term for possession of drug-related apparatuses following a guilty plea.

61.For Charge 4, HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik [2001] 1 HKC 261 suggests a starting point of 12-18 months’ imprisonment for possession of dangerous drugs by a bona fide user.  However, the court emphasized flexibility, with the quantity of drugs being the primary factor.  In the present case, the two bottles containing 0.38 gramme of methamphetamine, used solely for personal consumption, pose no risk of dissemination.  Further, D2 has no previous conviction for drug trafficking offence.

62.It was submitted that a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment would reflect the criminality of Charge 4 (see HKSAR v Muhammad Ali Pahat, referred to by D1).

63.D2 has 6 previous convictions 4 of which were related to drug possession committed prior to the present incident.

64.D2 frankly admitted to relapse in 2021 following his son’s birth.  A social welfare protection order was imposed due to D2’s drug abuse.  From September 2022 to January 2024, D2 attended regular counselling at Hong Kong SKH Welfare Council Neo-Horizon, undergoing 45 urine tests with only one positive result in early 2024 (see official letter dated 29 April 2025 submitted). While susceptible to relapse, it was submitted that D2 is not a persistent offender.  It was submitted that a starting point of 6 months for Charge 4 would be appropriate.

65.Given the offences arose from the same incident, and because of totality, the court was invited to impose concurrent sentences.

66.After considering Fu Man Kit and Superintentent of Tai Lam Correctional Institution [2022] 1 HKLRD 219 and HKSAR v Cheng Tsz Ho & Anor [2024] HKCA 885 at the invitation of the court, it was submitted[1], inter alia, that:

(a)  Rule 69 of the Prison Rules (Cap 234A)  (sentence remission)  falls under CSD’s authority, not the court;

(b)  Common law precludes sentencing judges from factoring in remission to avoid inflating sentences; and

(c)  If, however, the rules governing sentence reduction result in unfair outcome for the prisoner, the court will not ignore it (para 11 of Cheng Tsz Ho), suggesting that the court will consider the good behavior during remand when determining sentence.

67.Ms Po informed the court of the following remand history of D2.  D2 was remanded from 8 February 2024 to 8 April 2025, totaling 424 days.  On 19 June 2024, while on remand, D2 was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment (122 days)  for “possession of dangerous drug” in a separate case at Kowloon City Magistracy (KC/380/18).  Assuming his good behavior, his actual term for that case would be reduced by 1/3, resulting in 81 days served (122 – 41 days)  (subject to confirmation by prosecution).  Consequently, the remaining remand period was 343 days (424 – 81 days).

68.Ms Po suggested a starting point of 4 ½ months for Charge 3; and a starting point of 6 months for Charge 4.

69.The court is urged to impose a lenient sentence, allowing for D2’s immediate release to continue his rehabilitation.

Sentence

70.At the outset, I declare that I will discard the apparent aggravating factor of joint enterprise in relation to Charges 3 and 4 for two reasons. First, they are simply joint possession for individual use offences.  Secondly, D1 and D2 were cohabitees so it would not have been unnatural for them to jointly possess these items without adding to their individual criminality.

71.I will deal with D2 first because it is much simpler to deal with.  For the offences that D2 has been convicted of, before sentencing him to an imprisonment sentence, I will have to obtain a DATC report (section 54A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, refers)  and for that reason, I will have to remand him in custody for a period not exceeding 3 weeks.

72.D2 has been remanded in custody for this case for a period of about 343 days.

73.There are two aggravating factors in relation to D2.  First, he committed the present offences whilst on, and jumping, bail for another case of possession of dangerous drug (KC/380/18), a case he committed in 2017 but was not sentenced until 19 June 2024, probably because he was not re-arrested until the date of arrest of the present case.  Secondly, he is a repeat offender of possession of dangerous drug.

74.If I were to sentence D2 to a term of imprisonment, for Charge 3, I would likely have sentenced him to 4 months’ imprisonment; and for Charge 4, I would likely have sentenced him to 5 months’ imprisonment (HKSAR v Muhammad Waqas [2019] 4 HKLRD 323, 338-339, at paras 62-64, considered), in both cases, taking into account the aggravating factors and his pleas of guilty.  I should add that, apart from the pleas of guilty, there are no other mitigating factors of weight which would have caused me to reduce his notional sentences further.

75.However, these theoretical sentences are not commensurate with the time in custody that D2 has already spent.

76.In the premises, I will not sentence D2 to any further terms of imprisonment, thus dispensing with the need to remand him further for obtaining a report.  I will simply fine him for both charges.  The fines that I will impose will have taken into account the aggravating factors and his pleas of guilty.

77.Now, back to D1.  Needless to say, trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence anywhere in the world.  It is made more serious where more than one type of serious drug is involved, as here.

78.Herry Jane Yusuph (supra) sets out the six-step approach to sentencing an offender in such situations.

79.For Charge 1 of trafficking in 0.51 gramme of cocaine, the arithmetical starting point according to the tariff is 25.84 months’ imprisonment.  The relevant sentencing band in the tariff for up to 10 grammes of the drug has not been disturbed by the recent case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234.

80.For Charge 2 of trafficking in 18.12 grammes of cocaine and 1.46 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride ie ICE, I accept the submission that the amount of cocaine under Charge 1 should be added to that here to form a total amount of cocaine of 18.63 grammes for the purpose of calculation and ultimately sentence.  For the drug ICE, the traditional tariff for the sentencing band for up to 10 grammes of the drug has also not been disturbed by the case of Huang Ruifang (supra).

81.I also accept the submission that the combined approach of sentencing is more appropriate than the individual approach; and for that purpose, I will need to consider, inter alia, the results of the three cross-checking tests, namely, absurdity test, conversion test, and ratio test, before finalizing the appropriate starting point for Charge 2.

82.The results of the three tests, according to my own calculations[2], are as follows:-

(a)  Absurdity test: 20.09 grammes of cocaine – 69 months; 20.09 grammes of ICE – 92 months;

(b)  Conversion test: 23.9 grammes of cocaine – 72.5 months; 8.0 grammes of ICE – 74.8 months; and

(c)  Ratio test: 92.73% x 69 months (cocaine)  + 7.27% x 92 months (ICE)  = 70.67 months.

83.Based on the above figures, I regard 71 months’ imprisonment as a fair initial starting point for Charge 2 and I will adopt it.  Because of the presence of more than one type of serious drug, I will enhance the starting point by 2 months (see HKSAR v Islam SM Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146, 157, at para 27(3)  & (4)).

84.Next, I will consider the role and culpability of D1 in the act of trafficking.  Under caution at the scene, D1 admitted she sold (sic)  the dangerous drugs for purpose of improving her children’s living standard.  Under cautioned VRI, D1 said she was a deliverer of dangerous drugs as per her boss’s order; she would sometimes receive cash from customers; she would receive reward of $80 to $100 for each bag of drugs sold; the cash of $400 seized from the kitchen was crime proceeds.

85.At the crime scene, a plier, a clamp, 3 measuring cups, an electronic scale and multiple empty transparent resealable plastic bags were found.

86.Based on these undisputed facts, and despite the “exculpatory” statement (to which I gave no weight)  under cautioned VRI that about 12 grammes of cocaine in 30 to 40 transparent resealable plastic bags were taken by her to the scene after collection of the same from an unknown male in the morning of the day of arrest, I draw the only reasonable inference that D1 was at the scene operating a packaging and distribution centre for dangerous drugs (see Herry Jane Yusuph (supra) at 320-322, paras 61-64).  Mr Kan for D1 was at pains to persuade me away from this finding but he was ready to concede that D1 was an actual/direct trafficker.  In the end, for the purpose of sentencing, it really makes little difference.

87.For this reason, for Charge 2, I will further enhance the starting point by 2 months to reach a final starting point of 75 months’ imprisonment.  I am of the considered view that by adding only a total of 4 months to the initial starting point by reason of the fact of two drugs and the role and culpability of D1, the enhancement is by no means excessive and the final starting point for Charge 2 thus arrived at is fair, just and balanced.

88.For the same reason ie for the role and culpability of D1, I will enhance the starting point of Charge 1 by a small margin to reach the final starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment.

89.For Charge 3, I will adopt a starting point of 4 ½ months’ imprisonment (Law Sing (supra) considered).

90.For Charge 4, I will adopt a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment (Muhammad Waqas (supra) considered).

91.D1 pleaded guilty in good time, earning for herself the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.

92.For the special circumstances on the papers relating to D1, I will grant her a further sentencing discount resulting, together with the earlier discount of 1/3, in a cumulative sentencing discount of 40%.

93.There are no other mitigating factors of substance from D1 to justify any further reduction in her sentences.

94.By the approach with which I calculated and considered the sentence on Charge 2, the sentence on Charge 1 is subsumed into the sentence on Charge 2. For this reason, I will order the sentences of Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently.

95.The drug subject of Charge 4 was extracted from the inhaling devices subject of Charge 3.  I am satisfied that the sentences in relation thereto ought to run concurrently as well.

96.Charges 1 and 2 as a group relates to a different criminal activity as that relating to the group encompassing Charges 3 and 4.  Although they took place at the same place and time (roughly, in the case of Charge 1), in principle, the two groups ought to attract consecutive sentences.

97.However, before determining the final aggregate sentence, I will need to consider totality and this incidentally is also the final step in the Herry Jane Yusuph approach.  In essence, I will need to take a step back and consider what sentence is just, fair and balanced in the overall circumstances of the offence[3] and the offender.  In this case, there are a large number of plastic bags containing a large amount of cocaine. Hence, the scale of the trafficking operation could not be described as small.  The possession charges are an offshoot really and I will not order other than a small consecutive sentence to the main trafficking sentence to arrive at what I believe to be an appropriate overall sentence for D1.

(D1 and D2, please stand)

98.For Charge 1, D1 is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment[4].

99.For Charge 2, D1 is sentenced to 45 months’ imprisonment.

100.For Charge 3, D1 is sentenced to 2 months and 21 days’ imprisonment; D2 is sentenced to a fine of $1,000, to be deducted from his bail money.

101.For Charge 4, D1 is sentenced to 3 months and 18 days’ imprisonment; D2 is sentenced to a fine of $1,500, to be deducted from his bail money.

102.In the case of D1, I order that the sentences on Charges 1 and 2 are to run concurrently.  I also order that the sentences on Charges 3 and 4 are to run concurrently.  I further order that one month of the sentences on Charges 3 and 4 are to run consecutively to the sentences on Charges 1 and 2, making an aggregate sentence in the case of D1 of 46 months’ imprisonment.