COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs. The drug was 353.58 grammes of a solid containing 341.13 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “ice”.
The facts admitted by the defendant show that he was stopped and searched by the police after parking a private vehicle. A body search revealed nothing. However, when the car was searched, the police found four plastic bags of suspected dangerous drugs wrapped in a towel on the armrest between the driver’s and front passenger’s seats.
On being arrested and cautioned, the defendant said he had nothing to say. Later at the police station, the police seized from the defendant two mobile phones and cash of HK$17,400. Under caution, the defendant said he agreed to carry the goods which he knew were dangerous drugs for a payment of HK$2,000 promised to him by one “Ah Shui”. He said that the car belonged to his brother-in-law and the cash he was carrying was for use in his transportation business. The estimated street value of the drugs seized was HK$269,427. The defendant accepted and agreed that at the relevant times he was trafficking in the dangerous drugs.
The defendant has a criminal record. It began with a possession of dangerous drugs charge in 1994. There were two similar offences in 1995 and 1996. He had three convictions for theft, in 1996, 2012 and 2013. His last significant conviction was for handling stolen goods for which he was dealt with in the District Court and sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment. The last three recorded convictions on his record were imposed a few days after the date of the instant offence, which means that the instant offence was committed whilst the defendant was on bail for the offences of theft and handling.
The defendant is aged 37. He was born in Hong Kong, educated to lower secondary level and worked as a transport worker before his arrest. He claimed he is not a drug addict, although that is not borne out, necessarily, by his criminal record. He lived with his wife and his four-year-old daughter.
In mitigation, two letters were put before the court. One was from the defendant himself, in which he expressed his remorse, not just for the offence, but in particular for the damage that he has done to his family and to the life of his four-year-old daughter. He acknowledges that the present crime is a serious one and he knows that he will be in prison for a lengthy period of time.
His father, who appears to be very supportive, confirms the remorse that his son experiences and he described the defendant’s business; its initial success and then collapse. He appears to blame himself for having worked as a cross-border truck driver and failed to pay attention to his son’s extra-curricular activities. He believes that his son is repentant and accepts his responsibility of being a husband and father. He also accepts his own wrongdoing.
In considering sentence I note that the tariff sentence as set out in the case of Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung, the guideline sentence is 14 to 18 years. I note that this amount of narcotic falls at the lower end of the range.
Mr Ma, in mitigation for his client, points out that he has been sentenced very recently to a total of 28 months’ imprisonment and says that some consideration should be given to totality in respect of the additional sentence which is now to be imposed.
The only valid mitigation - and Mr Ma recognises this - is the defendant’s plea of guilty and he is entitled to the full one-third discount, having advised his plea the day before the pre-trial review was fixed for this case.
I have considered the best way to take account of the fact that he has received a recent lengthy period of sentence and accordingly I do that by dropping the starting point to 13 years.
That makes a total, with the discount, of 8 years and 8 months’ imprisonment and I sentence the defendant to this period.
(Discussion between court and counsel)
COURT: I am not backdating the sentence. I am dropping the starting point to take account of the totality. I think it is a tidier way than going back and increasing the sentence in reverse.
8 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.