COURT: This defendant was charged originally with one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs; the drug was methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “ice”. The substance was analysed by the Government Chemist as being 21.3 grammes of a crystalline solid containing the narcotic quantity of 20.93 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
A charge of possession of dangerous drugs was preferred as an alternative charge. The defendant offered a plea to simple possession, which was accepted to the prosecution, and, subsequent to his admission of facts, the defendant was convicted of possession.
A verdict of not guilty was entered on the charge of trafficking and the defendant was acquitted of that charge.
The facts to which the defendant pleaded show that the police conducted a raid on and searched a property listed as a women’s hair salon, but effectively a residential flat. At the time the police entered there were five men, including the defendant, and one woman in the sitting room. When the flat was searched. On a bed in the bedroom was found a green wallet containing two transparent resealable plastic bags containing suspected dangerous drugs; a yellow pouch containing one transparent resealable plastic bag containing suspected dangerous drugs was also found. The defendant made no response when shown the items.
He was arrested and cautioned. He told the police that he had bought the drugs for his own consumption because he was unemployed and unhappy. He said he had purchased the drugs for HK$3,000 to HK$4,000 from two men who approached him in the park. He had put the dangerous drugs into smaller packets for ease of use, but after consuming one packet, decided it was not for him. The estimated retail value of the drugs was HK$13,630. The defendant admitted that he had possession and knowledge of the dangerous drugs seized.
The defendant has a very old conviction for MOTS in 1975 and in 2013 he was convicted of two gambling offences. He has no previous drug convictions.
As the defendant was found guilty of possession, I was required by Section 54 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, to obtain a report from the Commissioner of Correctional Services as to the defendant’s suitability for the DATC programme. Sentencing was adjourned for that report to be obtained. In that report the Medical Officer confirmed that the defendant was not drug dependent and thus was not suitable for admission to the DATC programme. No Detention Order has ever been made in respect of the defendant.
The defendant’s antecedents statement showed that he was born in Hong Kong on 8 May 1957; he is now 57 years old. He was educated to Form 3 level. He had worked as a barman and as a construction site worker in the past, earning around HK$10,000 a month, but he had been unemployed for three months before his arrest because of a back injury. The defendant is a widower whose wife died in 2008. He has seven children between the ages of 24 and 33, none of whom was living with him.
Counsel advised the court that although his client did not have a clear record, he did have a record for honesty and cited three instances where the defendant found valuable property which he returned to the police.
The defendant said that he had had a quarrel with his girlfriend and he had been drinking in the park when he was approached by two men and he made this foolish purchase of the drugs.
Three cases were referred to the court: HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik [2001] 1 HKC 261; HKSAR v Lai Kam Sang CACC 578/1998; and HKSAR v Wong Sheung Sum [2001] 1 HKLRD 405. I was referred also to CACC 502/1998, Chew Sik Pok. From those cases it appears that the starting point for a possession charge such as this is in the region of 12 to 18 months and the court gives consideration to enhancement, for, any latent risk factor. This quantity of drug is a substantial, but not huge, amount of drug. There was a latent risk factor because although the drug was confined to the home, the home was obviously accessed by other occupants and by visitors. I noted the sentencing principles in those cases.
The most effective mitigation in this case is the plea of guilty, for which the defendant is entitled to a one-third discount. I do not consider his record as relevant for the purposes of the sentencing.
I take a starting point of 18 months in this case and enhance it by 6 months for the latent risk factor.
Having discounted the sentence, I sentence him to 16 months’ imprisonment.