CRIMINAL CASE NO. 246 OF 2011
COURT: Both defendants pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court on 8 July 2011 and they have confirmed their pleas in these proceedings. The 1st defendant, aged 42, was seen on 20 December 2010 being supplied by the 2nd defendant with a packet in Johnston Road, in Wanchai, and he was soon afterwards arrested. The crystalline solid in his possession contained 49.81 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, which I will refer to as ice. He told the police that he had paid $9,000 to “Ah Yi”, the name by which he referred to the 2nd defendant.
The 2nd defendant, aged 28, was arrested outside her flat in Yau Ma Tei later the same day and, when the search warrant for her address was being explained to her, she stated that she just wanted to make money. Police duly found a small quantity of ice inside her right boot and a much greater quantity inside a drawer at her flat, which she said that she had purchased for $90,000 earlier in the day in Sheung Shui. She also told the police that she was pregnant and unemployed. It is a fact of this case that her child is now three months old and she took the risk of this serious offence knowing that she was pregnant when she did so.
The ice taken from the 2nd defendant’s flat and found in her boot weighed, in total that is, 228.73 grammes and had an estimated street value of $160,038 on Charge 3, and the value of the ice, on Charges 1 and 2, was $36,720.
The guideline tariffs for trafficking in ice are set out in AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR at 125. In the 1st defendant’s case the appropriate band for sentence is between 7 and 10 years’ imprisonment for amounts between 10 and 70 grammes of ice. Here, for almost 50 grammes of ice, the appropriate sentence, after trial, would, in my judgment, be 9 years’ imprisonment.
I do not accept that a significant proportion of these drugs was for self-consumption. For someone earning $10,000 per month, as I am told you were, to pay $9,000 for a single amount of ice represents a very large sum even for a user who is said, on your part, to consume from three-quarters to a gramme of ice each day. This illustrates that this was someone funding his own habit by the supply of ice. He has done it before and here he was caught doing it again.
However, I do accept that the 1st defendant is a user of ice and I propose in those circumstances, accepting that a small proportion of the ice would have been consumed by himself, not to enhance the sentence on account of his previous trafficking offence for which a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment was served. The 1st defendant was only released on 23 July 2010.
In the 2nd defendant’s case, the totality of ice in Counts 2 and 3 comes to 278.54 grammes, for which the tariff band of 10 to 14 years’ imprisonment for between 70 and 300 grammes is appropriate. I take the view that a proper sentence would be 13½ years’ imprisonment in total, after trial.
Now, both defendants have pleaded guilty. They will receive the full benefit of this in the form of a one-third reduction of sentence.
Mr Lam, would you stand, please. Your sentence is one of 6 years’ imprisonment.
Miss Chong, would you stand? Your sentence on the 2nd charge is 6 years’ imprisonment. The sentence on the 3rd charge will be 8 years’ imprisonment and 3 years of that sentence on the 3rd charge will be consecutive to the 2nd charge sentence, so that your sentence in all will be one of 9 years’ imprisonment.