COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one count of manufacturing a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4 and section 6 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance respectively. He is committed to this court for sentence.
In the afternoon on 17 June 2022, the defendant was intercepted by Customs Officers outside Block 2, Sceneway Garden, Lam Tin. 0.41 grammes of cocaine was found from his trousers pocket. A search of an apartment on Block 2 found 1,653.5 grammes of cocaine and various drugs manufacturing paraphernalia, such as electronic scales, spoon, baking powder, sealing machine, pots and pans, etc.
Under caution, the defendant admitted that all those tools and apparatus were used for packaging cocaine after converting cocaine salt into cocaine base. The defendant had been a tenant of this particular apartment since November 2020. However, I note that he was only charged for one day for manufacturing.
The street value of the cocaine seized was estimated to be over HK$1.6 million.
The defendant is now 28, educated up to Secondary school level. Prior to his arrest, he was unemployed. He has four criminal records, none relating to dangerous drug.
Mitigation letters from his wife, parents and social worker have been produced. I note what they say in those letters. They understandably plea for leniency from the court. I understand their wishes, but my hands are tied by the guidelines set down by the Court of Appeal.
Starting point for trafficking in 1,653.5 grammes of cocaine base on quantity alone is one of 20 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. In this case, the defendant was not simply trafficking, he was manufacturing in the sense of cooking, packaging and distributing as instructed, albeit the manufacturing aspect was pretty primitive and simple in my view. Nevertheless, an extra 2 years will be added. Thus, making a total of 22 years and 2 months’ imprisonment in respect of Count 2.
As for Count 1, 0.41 grammes of cocaine, a starting point of 18 months is set. Apart from the defendant’s earliest plea to which a one-third discount is accorded, there is nothing in my view that this court can further reduce the sentence. After a plea, the sentences for Count 2 and Count 1 are set at 177 months and 12 months’ imprisonment respectively.
As for Count 3, given the sentence imposed on Count 2 has already taken care of the manufacturing aspect of this case, thus sentence will be set at the same par as Count 2, ie, 177 months’ imprisonment.
Given the circumstances of the case, all sentences are ordered to run concurrently with each other, thus, making a total of 177 months, ie, 14 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
