COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
On the material day, the defendant was intercepted by police officers; 0.1 of a gramme of methamphetamine, "Ice", was found on the defendant. A house search conducted by police officers led to the seizure of a further 33.01 grammes of cocaine, 38.15 grammes of "Ice", 28.9 grammes of ketamine and 0.37 of a gramme of midazolam. The street value of these drugs is estimated to be just over HK$81,000.
The defendant is 44 and has a number of drug convictions. In particular, he has two trafficking in a dangerous drug convictions.
In terms of quantity and sentence, the heaviest one is "Ice" in this case. As such, I use it as the basis for the present sentencing exercise. In respect of Count 2, the starting point for trafficking in 38 grammes of "Ice" alone, in my view, is one of 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. Treating the cocaine and ketamine the same as "Ice", the total quantity involved would be approximately 100 grammes. That would take the starting point to over 10 years’ imprisonment.
It is submitted on the defendant’s behalf that a small portion of these drugs was for his own consumption. I accept that but, as pointed out by the Court of Appeal, possession of dangerous drugs itself is still an offence, possession of dangerous drugs itself is also punishable with imprisonment.
For the present sentencing exercise, the amount of midazolam is so small that I believe it can be ignored.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, namely a small amount of the drugs was for his own consumption and the total amount of drugs seized on that particular day and his previous similar trafficking records, I am of the view that the appropriate starting point in respect of Count 2 would be one of 10 years’ imprisonment.
Given the defendant’s plea, his sentence in Count 2 is therefore reduced to one of 6 years and 8 months.
In respect of Count 1, given the small amount of drug involved, the starting point would be one of 12 months’ imprisonment.
Given his plea, the sentence is reduced to 8 months. Taking into account the circumstances surrounding his arrest that day, this 8 months is to be served totally concurrent with the sentence imposed in Count 2.
In conclusion, the defendant is sentenced to 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.