CRIMINAL CASE NO. 53 OF 2012
COURT: The 1st defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug, Counts 1 and 2, and one count of manufacturing a dangerous drug, Count 3.
The 2nd defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, Count 2.
Shortly before 7.30 pm on 11 April, year 2011, the 1st defendant, 2nd defendant and another man were intercepted by police officers at the lobby of Wing On Mansion at No. 26 Tai Ho Road, Tsuen Wan.
A police officer searched the 1st defendant and found 11.38 grammes of cocaine from the left front pocket of his jeans. This is the subject matter of the 1st count.
Under caution, the 1st defendant admitted that he was taking the cocaine to somebody for a reward of $1,000.
The 2nd defendant and the other man were also searched, but nothing suspicious was found.
The police then searched the premises rented by the 1st defendant. It was situated at Cubicle B, Flat B, 4th Floor, Wing On Mansion.
There were two plastic bags and five pieces of paper containing cocaine found on a folding table. There were other items found at various locations inside Cubicle B, including a wok, a glass, a pair of chopsticks, an electronic scale, an air-conditioner filter and a cutter. Except the wok, all other items contained traces of cocaine.
The fingerprints of the 2nd defendant’s left index and middle fingers were found inside a paper bag which contained a large quantity of resealable plastic bags. The 2nd defendant’s hands, nail clippings and face contained traces of cocaine. His hair, face and palms also contained traces of ketamine.
There were six paper packets of about 90 grammes of sodium bicarbonate and 76 cc of ammonia in a bottle. According to the Senior Chemist, these were chemicals commonly associated with the process of making cocaine. Given the various items seized from Cubicle B above, he also opined that the process of making cocaine could have been taking place there.
The 1st defendant rented the cubicle from 25 March, year 2011, at a monthly rental of $3,800. The tenancy was for two years.
There were 11.38 grammes of cocaine found on the 1st defendant. The street value was about $13,300. There were 241.75 grammes of cocaine found inside Cubicle B. The street value was about $280,000.
Under caution, the 1st defendant admitted cooking cocaine in Cubicle B.
The 1st defendant is 29. He completed Form 5 education. He is single, living with mother and younger sister. His father is in a nursing home. He has six previous convictions. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for trafficking in a dangerous drug in year 2008. He has four convictions of possession of dangerous drugs. He was imprisoned for 6 months in November, year 2011, for possession of a dangerous drug. He was last discharged on 5 January, year 2012.
In her letter to this court, his mother pointed out that the 1st defendant was influenced by undesirable friends. He is now remorseful, and would take up courses in prison to improve himself. She pleads for leniency.
The 2nd defendant is 28. He attained Form 3 education. He last worked in a fruit stall. He has one conviction of possession of a dangerous drug in year 2002, which is spent. The parents of the 2nd defendant divorced in 1988. The 2nd defendant grew up in a single parent family with little parental guidance. Both parents wrote to this court confirming that the 2nd defendant was led astray by friends. They maintain that the 2nd defendant is an obedient son, and plead for leniency. His counsel, Mr Boyton, confirmed that the 2nd defendant had not explained why he committed the present offence.
For trafficking of cocaine, the tariff case of Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 is applicable.
For the 1st count against the 1st defendant, I take the starting point of 5 years and 1 month’s imprisonment. I deduct 1 year and 8 months for his plea.
I sentence the 1st defendant to 3 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.
For the 2nd count against both defendants, I take the starting point of 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
There is no obvious distinction between the roles of either defendant. I treat them equally in sentencing. I deduct 4 years and 3 months for their plea.
I sentence each defendant to 8 years and 5 months for the 2nd count.
For the 3rd count against the 1st defendant, I have considered various authorities, including HKSAR v Ip Yuet Ho CACC455/2007, R v Cheung Wai Kwong and Another [1997] HKLRD 344, HKSAR v Kan Kong Fai [2009] 3 HLRD 582.
Manufacturing of a dangerous drug is a more serious offence than trafficking. Apart from the quantity of cocaine, I have to consider the scale of the manufacturing plot and other circumstances of the case. There were about 240 grammes of cocaine found in Cubicle B, about 90 grammes of sodium bicarbonate, and 76 cc of ammonia. There was a large number of resealable plastic bags.
Given the various items found in Cubicle B, I assess that the scale of manufacturing is a medium one.
In HKSAR v Ip Yuet Ho CACC455/2007, the Court of Appeal agreed that 13 years’ starting point for a manufacturing charge involving 50 grammes of cocaine and 3 grammes of “Ice” was appropriate.
Our case is more serious than that case. Having considered the circumstances of this case and the background of the 1st defendant, I take 16 years as the starting point for the 3rd count. I deduct 5 years and 4 months for the plea.
I sentence the 1st defendant to 10 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for the 3rd count.
For the 1st defendant, taking into account totality principle, I order the sentence of the 2nd count and 3rd count to run concurrently. I also order that 2 months of the sentence of the 1st count to run consecutive to that of the 3rd count; a total of 10 years and 10 months’ imprisonment for the 1st defendant.
For the 2nd defendant, he has to serve a total of 8 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.