COURT: The defendant had indicated at an early stage that he would plead guilty to Count 2 of the indictment, namely trafficking in a dangerous drug of 4.95 kilograms of a solid containing 4.16 kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride, so when the matter came up in the pre-trial review, there was confirmation that the defendant would plead, which is acceptable to the prosecution, and so the trial dates were vacated.
The defendant then pleaded guilty on what was supposed to have been the first day of trial to Count 2, and Count 1 of the indictment was left on file not to be proceeded with without the leave of the court.
Since then, much effort has been expended in order to prepare for his mitigation. All that has been noted, and it is now time for this court to consider sentence.
The facts in this case are that on 8 June last year, police officers, armed with a search warrant, entered the premises which is the subject matter of the count and intercepted the defendant, who was inside, wearing a black T-shirt and shorts.
The defendant was searched, and in his possession were found keys to the premises and cash of about HK$5,000. Found on the premises were five bricks of a white substance which subsequently were found to be the cocaine hydrochloride which is the subject matter of the 2nd count which the defendant has pleaded guilty to.
Also found on the premises were drug manufacturing paraphernalia.
When the defendant was arrested and cautioned, the defendant said he did not manufacture dangerous drugs. He was only told to take five pieces of “ho lok” to those premises and that he would be paid $5,000 for his effort.
The defendant subsequently was detained and taken to his house for a house search, but nothing significant was found.
The premises in which the drugs were found were subsequently investigated by the police, and the police found that those premises were let to the defendant from about 16 May 2012 - that was a few weeks prior to the arrest of the defendant - and the defendant had paid a deposit of $10,000 and rent of $5,000 per month.
The drugs seized at the premises were estimated to have a retail value at street level of about HK$4.95 million.
The defendant is aged 19½, and at the time of the arrest I am told he was 18½ years old. In 2008 he had been convicted of assault and wounding, for which he was sent to a rehabilitation centre, so this is his first offence in relation to dangerous drugs.
The defendant lives with his mother and elder brother, his father having passed away. The defendant was born in Hong Kong to a Thai mother and a Chinese father. He failed to take advantage of the education that was given to him, and quit school in Form 3 and became a waiter, and subsequently unemployed. His mother and his elder brother came to court, and his mother wrote a letter blaming herself for the defendant’s predicament because she had worked long hours and did not have much time to dedicate to the defendant.
At this stage, I must say to the mother that she should not blame herself. It is all the fault of the defendant that he is in such a predicament, and to the defendant’s credit, he recognises this, because he realised that he had fallen into this because of his own lack of willpower. He preferred to enjoy himself and make easy money rather than work hard, became addicted to drugs, and therefore he committed this present offence.
It is sad for the defendant’s mother, and I have every sympathy for her, but hopefully the time in prison will make the defendant see the error of his ways, and he can study and learn a trade so that when he comes out, he will be able to work for his living and repay his mother for all her heartbreak.
Now, as Mr Wong correctly pointed out, the Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guidelines for trafficking in heroin and cocaine of over 600 grammes, and the guideline recommends that for trafficking in between 4,000 to 15,000 grammes of cocaine or heroin, a sentence of 26 to 30 years’ imprisonment after trial is recommended.
So the starting point sentence for the present amount of drugs should be one of 26 years, and taking into account the fact that the defendant has pleaded guilty, he is entitled to one-third discount, reducing the sentence to one of 17 years and 4 months.
It is not a case where the court can take into account the young age of the defendant, because at the age of 18½ or 19½, it is no longer considered to be of such a young age that it can be taken into account in reducing the sentence. However, having taken into account everything that has occurred since the defendant’s plea, I will reduce it by another 4 months, and so the defendant goes to prison for 17 years.