CRIMINAL CASE NO. 84 OF 2011
In the 2nd count, he is alleged to have trafficked in two tablets and one tablet fragment containing 0.03 of a gramme of midazolam, 0.72 of a gramme of a mixture containing 0.48 of a gramme of heroin hydrochloride and 0.21 of a kilogram of a crystalline solid containing 0.19 of a kilogram of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
On 20 September last year, police officers detected the defendant at about 11.50 pm outside the unit on the 4th floor in a building in Nathan Road. Upon interception, the drugs in Count 1 were found in the defendant’s trousers pocket. Using keys found on the defendant, the police gained entry into a unit inside Flat 4, where the drugs in the 2nd count were found.
Under caution, the defendant admitted that he had bought the drugs on the day of his arrest for about $10,000 from a male called Ah Wai. It is admitted in the facts that the total street value of the drugs seized was in the region of HK$164,039.
The defendant is aged 35 and has a poor record. He has been convicted of some 26 offences in the past, 10 of which were drug-related. That is why Mr Mitchell is correct to say that the only real mitigation in this case is the fact that the defendant has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
In considering sentence, I do have to follow the guidelines laid down in the case of Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125. It was laid down in that case that for trafficking in amounts of 70 grammes to 300 grammes, a sentence in the region of 10 to 14 years is recommended. The total amount of drugs of methamphetamine hydrochloride found on that day of the arrest of the defendant is about 190.90 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. That will merit a starting point sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.
I agree with Mr Mitchell that the other drugs that were found, the midazolam, for example, were negligible when compared to the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
As I said, the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and he had co-operated with the police in pointing out the unit where he had stored the drugs in the 2nd count. In those circumstances, he is entitled to the full one-third discount which would bring the sentence down to 8 years.
So I sentence the defendant in the following way. On the 1st count, he is sentenced to a starting point sentence of 3 years, reduced to 2 years because of his plea; on the 2nd count, a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 8 years because of his plea. I do accept that the drugs, although in two counts, actually came from the one lot so, therefore, after considering the totality principle, I make the sentences concurrent.
The defendant goes to prison for a total of 8 years.