COURT: The defendant, Ngan Wai‑yip, was charged with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.
He pleaded guilty before me and was duly convicted after he admitted to the Summary of Facts before me.
The facts are relatively simple. On 8 March 2013 police officers carried out an operation in the area of Block 2 of Sherwood Court, Kingswood Villas, in Tin Shui Wai. The defendant was seen outside Block 2 carrying a shoulder bag. The defendant was intercepted after he boarded a taxi.
A search of the shoulder bag carried by the defendant resulted in the discovery of a transparent plastic bag containing what later was confirmed to be 0.24 kilogramme of a crystalline solid containing 0.23 kilogramme of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “Ice”.
The defendant was arrested and cautioned. The seized “Ice” had an estimated retail value of HK$190,800. The defendant admits and accepts that he was trafficking in the dangerous drugs seized.
Background and Mitigation
The defendant is aged 33, almost 34 because he was born in April. He is married with two children, aged two years and six months, with his wife. Mr Oliver Davies, counsel for the defendant, informs me that the defendant’s wife had a six‑year‑old child whom the defendant also took care of.
The defendant was educated up to secondary 3 level and used to work as a newspaper delivery boy and sales person. He was working part-time as a delivery worker at the time of the offence.
The defendant is not a first offender having appeared in court on eight previous occasions and had 14 previous convictions. Of these 14 convictions, five of them are drug related, three for possession of drugs and two for trafficking in dangerous drugs. Mr Davies also informs me that he has advised the defendant of the tariff in this type of case.
He frankly admits that there is not very much he can say in mitigation. He asked me not to adopt a mathematical calculation and to take into account the defendant was not a habitual trafficker having kept out of trouble for a few years after his release from prison in 2009.
Also, the defendant only acted as a courier. Mr Davies asked me to be as lenient as possible when sentencing the defendant.
Offences involving dangerous drugs are serious. The Court of Appeal has set down guidelines for the trafficking of “Ice” in the case of Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125.
The amount involved in this case, that is 230 grammes, falls into the band for 70 to 300 grammes. The starting point is between 10 to 14 years. Bearing in mind the circumstances of the offence, I am of the view that a starting point that is an appropriate sentence for a first offender for this offence, before the consideration of either aggravating or mitigating factors, is one of 12 years.
An aggravation here is that this is the third time the defendant had been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs. I do not see any other aggravating factor. On the other hand, I do not see any mitigating factor to reduce the starting point.
Taking into account the said aggravating factor, the appropriate sentence after trial for this defendant is one of 13 years. The defendant had offered a timely plea and is therefore entitled to the full one-third discount.
For the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug the defendant is therefore sentenced to 8 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.