CRIMINAL CASE NO. 55 OF 2012
COURT: The defendant is charged with one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs
Ordinance, Cap. 134.
He has today pleaded guilty to that charge and admitted a Summary of Facts prepared by the prosecution which supports it.
I am satisfied that the offence has been established, and he is convicted as charged.
The particulars of the charge allege that on 9 October 2011 outside Wah Yin House at the Wah Kwai Estate in Aberdeen, he unlawfully trafficked in 11.22 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug which is commonly referred to as “Ice”.
The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant reveals the following. In the early hours of 9 October 2011, the defendant was intercepted by police officers outside Wah Yin House on the Wah Kwai Estate. He was searched, and inside the jacket he was wearing, the officers found a piece of tissue paper which itself contained seven transparent resealable plastic bags.
The contents of those resealable plastic bags were subsequently determined by the Government Chemist to contain 11.22 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a quantity of drugs which at that time had a street value in excess of $8,000.
The defendant originally told the police officers that the drugs were for his own consumption, but has accepted in the Summary of Facts that he was, when arrested, trafficking in them.
The defendant is 29 years of age. He has previous convictions, but only one drug related, namely a conviction for possession of Part 1 poison, in late 2009. On that occasion he was placed on probation.
On behalf of the defendant, Mr Poon has told me a little of his background. He came to the abuse of drugs late in life, having previously been a minibus driver for many years. On the occasion of his trafficking in the instant case, Mr Poon has submitted that a small proportion of the drugs were for his own consumption. He asked me to take that into account, bearing in mind the observations of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau and Another [2002] 1 HKLRD 69, and in particular, the passage which appears at page 79, and this I do.
But bearing in mind the observations of the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLRD 125 as to the appropriate ranges of sentencing for this offence and the quantity of drugs involved in the defendant’s offence on this occasion, the appropriate starting point for sentence after trial is 7 years’ imprisonment. When I come to that conclusion, I take into account the exchanges that have taken place today between myself and Mr Poon on behalf of the defendant wherein it is accepted that any amount for his own consumption in the circumstances is minimal.
Having adopted a starting point for trial of 7 years’ imprisonment, the defendant is entitled to a full one‑third discount for his plea of guilty. There is nothing in the circumstances of the defendant nor the circumstances of the commission of the offence which would justify a starting point for sentence lower than that, nor a discount from that starting point higher than the one-third I have indicated.
In the result, a sentence of 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment is appropriate, and that is the sentence I impose.