CRIMINAL CASE NO. 295 OF 2010
COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 940.63 grammes of a powder containing 921.59 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride.
He did plead guilty at the earliest opportunity in the Magistrates’ Court, and has been committed to this court for sentencing.
The facts of this case were that in the afternoon of 3 February this year, the defendant was stopped by police officers outside the Tai Wai MTR Station, and upon a search of his bag he was found to be carrying an electronic scale, packets of suspected drugs, and 46 smaller pellets of suspected cocaine.
Under caution, he admitted that he was delivering the cocaine for a reward of $3,000.
A house search conducted later shows that the defendant was no stranger to cocaine, because at his home was found some more cocaine. Traces of cocaine were found in some plastic bags, and there were 11 boxes of baking soda found, a pair of scissors with suspected dangerous drugs, and a microwave oven with traces of suspected dangerous drugs; and also found in the kitchen were 22 boxes of baking soda.
At the defendant’s home, the cocaine that was found, the defendant admitted subsequently that he would mix the cocaine found at his home with alcohol and would heat it up in the microwave, as he believed that the cocaine would become stronger.
Government Chemist subsequently examined the drugs that were found in the bag that was carried by the defendant at the time of his arrest, and the total of drugs found was 236.09 grammes of a powder containing 225.82 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride, which is a salt of cocaine. The two larger pellets that were examined were found to contain a total of 217.51 grammes of a powder containing 217.51 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride, a salt of cocaine in its most pure form, and the 46 smaller pellets were examined and found to contain a powder totally weighing 487.03 grammes and was found to contain 478.26 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride, a salt of cocaine.
Government Chemist considers that the chemicals and paraphernalia seized in the flat were associated with making the cocaine suitable for smoking.
The street value in respect of the quantity of drugs found in the defendant’s bag upon his arrest was estimated to be about $852,210.
Ms Chow, who mitigated on behalf of the defendant, has made a very comprehensive and well-prepared mitigation on the defendant’s behalf. She tells the court that the defendant comes from a working-class family and was the youngest in the family. He did not receive much care when growing up because his parents had to work several jobs to make ends meet. A letter from his sisters testified to that fact, and also that they blamed themselves for not looking after him well enough.
But the defendant is aged 39, and should know better. The defendant is lucky to have grown up in a family where his sisters still care for him now. They till today still support him, and he has betrayed their belief in him.
The defendant’s mother has been suffering from mental illness for quite some time, and I am informed by Ms Chow that the defendant himself has suffered from a thyroid tumour and had had an operation in 2007, and because of the operation he has had to take thyroid medication, which causes him to feel fatigue, and therefore he then turned to cocaine in order to feel less tired.
This is no excuse. Many people in Hong Kong suffer from the sort of thyroid problem that the defendant has, and the commission of this offence is merely a selfish act on behalf of the defendant. The fiancée of the defendant is also to be admired for standing by him until today. I accept therefore that the defendant is remorseful.
The case, as properly pointed out by Ms Chow, in relation to sentencing guidelines for trafficking in heroin and cocaine of over 600 grammes, was laid down in the case of HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437. The Court of Appeal recommended that for trafficking in heroin and cocaine of amounts of between 600 to 1,200 grammes, a sentence of 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment is recommended.
Those guidelines, as Ms Chow pointed out, have been followed in the later cases of Hamduni Cr. App. 326/2009 and Ally CACC407/2008, and of course the sentences in those cases included an enhancement for the international element in those cases.
Ms Chow therefore suggested that the starting point sentence for the present offence should be no higher than 21 years. I agree with her. I consider that an appropriate sentence for the defendant in this case would be a 21-year starting point, and taking away one-third because of the defendant’s early plea and remorse and clear record, the sentence will be 14 years’ imprisonment.