CRIMINAL CASE NO. 235 OF 2010
COURT: On 19 April 2007, the defendant was operating a car valeting service in Tsim Sha Tsui, using a moveable counter with a drawer in which he was seen to be rummaging on several occasions. There was a key to the drawer. When it was searched by police, the drawer was found to contain a set of electronic scales and a pack of a crystalline substance of which 12.58 grammes was methamphetamine hydrochloride, or “Ice”.
The defendant was arrested and charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs. When he was first brought before a magistrate, bail was refused, but another magistrate granted bail on terms which included the deposit of $50,000 in cash. The defendant then absconded between 29 June 2007 and 1 March 2010 when he voluntarily surrendered himself to the police at Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station, claiming he had forgotten to attend the hearing. His $50,000 was estreated because the court did not accept his explanation.
In due course, he was committed for trial to this court and he has today pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drugs in question which had a street value of about $4,000.
The defendant’s mitigation is based mainly upon his plea of guilty which entitles him to a discount of one-third on the appropriate starting point for sentence. I have also been told today, by Mr Khosa on his behalf, about his family circumstances, that he has five young children. I have also been given letters of recommendation from a doctor and from his wife.
Of course, the estreatment of the $50,000 related solely to his failure to answer bail and has nothing whatsoever to do with the commission of the offence for which he is to be sentenced. Similarly, his voluntary surrender to the police on 1 March 2010 is not mitigation of the principal offence because he was a man on the run. I am told that he has not been charged with any offence of failing to surrender to custody. However, let me make it clear that the fact of jumping bail does not aggravate the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug for which he is to be sentenced.
As he has been told, this court must apply sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal which relate to the narcotic element of the drugs in question and, therefore, in this case are the 12.58 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The sentencing guidelines of the Court of Appeal, which appear in a case called Ching Kwok Hung, prescribe a starting point of 7 to 10 years’ imprisonment for quantities of between 10 and 70 grammes. Therefore, the quantity in this case falls at the lower end of that band. I am not going to engage in a mathematical exercise to determine the starting point. I consider that to be an inappropriate approach to sentence.
I judge that the proper starting point in this case is one of 7 years’ imprisonment. That term is to be reduced by one-third to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment to reflect the mitigation which includes the personal circumstances which have been explained to me. But neither those personal circumstances nor the defendant’s otherwise clear record justify taking a lower starting point or applying a greater discount than the one-third to which I have referred.
Ali Arshad, I sentence you to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.