HKSAR v. Ahmed Sani Salman

DCCC1071/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1071 OF 2011

----------------------

-------------------------

Reasons for Sentence

-------------------------

1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to one offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to sections 4(1)(a) & (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

2.You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you.  Briefly, the facts are as follows.

3.On 12 July last, at 1732 hours, police saw a male named Man Hoi-hang leave Room 296A, 12th Floor, 290-296 Hennessy Road.  He was intercepted.  Nothing illegal was found on him. 

4.At 1735 hours that same day you left the same premises and you were intercepted and searched.  Three keys, which would have been Exhibit 17, were found on you.  Police entered the premises, I mentioned before, under the authority of a search warrant.  At that time a male, Singh Kamal, was in the bathroom.  E17 was found to open the wooden door and the iron gate of those premises.  The premises are, in fact, a suite. 

5.Upon search, six plastic bags, E2 to E7, two plastic bags, E9 and E11, which contained two plastic bottles, E8 and E10, all of which contained suspected dangerous drugs, and three plastic bags, E12, containing traces of suspected dangerous drug, were found on the cupboard next to the bed. 

6.On the said cupboard there was electronic scales and 35 empty plastic bags.  Arrested and cautioned, you remained silent.  PW4, Yuen Ching-ping, was a tenant at the premises.  She sublet to a male Poon Vega Hang Yunier for $5,500 per month.  PW4 had not been able to locate Poon since May of 2010.  PW4 visited the premises to collect rent on a number of occasions, and each time you were there.  You gave her $3,000 on 19 June as part of the rent.  You were there one responsible for negotiating rental payments with PW4.   

7.Subsequent analysis with the Government Chemist proved that: E2 contained 13.74 grammes of powder containing 11.53 grammes of ketamine; E3, 0.41 grammes of crystalline solid containing 0.37 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as “Ice”; E4, 0.07 grammes of solid containing cocaine; E12, traces of powder containing cocaine; and E5 to 7, E9 and E11, powder which did not contain any dangerous drugs. 

8.The street value of E2, E3 and E4 respectively were $1,456, $2,807 and $74.  At all material times you possessed these drugs for trafficking.  You admitted to 21 previous convictions on six occasions, two of which involved the dangerous drugs. 

9.On your behalf Mr Fenton entered mitigation.  He accepted that the antecedents statement was factually correct.  He also recognised that it was of little significance your background in this type of offence.  Therefore he did not dwell on the details of your domestic circumstances, etc.  Instead he referred me to page 1789, paragraph 4 of the current edition of Archbold.  That paragraph says that insignificant quantities of dangerous drugs may be ignored when you had a cocktail situation.   The basis for that was HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin & Anor CACC80/2003.

10.Mr Fenton asked me therefore on that basis to ignore the small quantities of cocaine and “Ice”.  The ketamine in this case is 11.53 grammes and places it within the range of 4 to 6 years' imprisonment. Understandably, and very sensibly, he suggested I should take it more towards the 4 year level than the 6 year level.  I agree. 

11.I turn now to the sentence.  Taking all matters into account, the facts of the case, the mitigating circumstances, and of course noting your record, you will go to prison for 27 months.