COURT: The defendant was convicted after trial of one count of possession of dangerous drug. He was originally charged with two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs of which the jury found him not guilty. The offence he was found guilty was the alternative charge of the offence in Count 2.
In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, background of the defendant, mitigation put forward on his behalf and a DATC report.
The facts of the case are simple, they may be summarised as follows. On 6 June 2013, after the defendant had entered Flat H at the address as stated in the indictment, he was opening the door to Room C therein and then he was intercepted by police officers. When police officers searched Room C, dangerous drugs were found. Some “ice” and ketamine were found put underneath a rack in the kitchen. These are the subject matter of Count 1, of which he was found not guilty.
Inside the bedroom, three packets containing 3.66 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 3.55 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride were found in a drawer of the bed.
In an interview conducted in the police station later, the defendant admitted under caution that he was in possession of this drug for his own consumption. The jury found him not guilty of trafficking in this drug, but found him guilty of possession.
I was told that the defendant is 40 years of age. He is divorced and has one daughter studying primary 1. He had worked in the trade of renovation and decoration. The defendant is not a first time offender. In 1991, he was sentenced to a detention centre for an offence of possession of an offensive weapon. In 2002, he was fined for an offence of possession of dangerous drug. In 2007, a suspended sentence and a fine were imposed, also for an offence of possession of dangerous drug. In 2012, he was fined for an offence of possession of Part 1 poison.
The DATC report confirms that, as a result of the remand, the defendant is no longer drug dependent. In all the circumstances an imprisonment term is to be considered.
Having regard to the narcotic content of 3.55 grammes, a basic starting point of 12 months is appropriate. In the particular circumstances of the case, I am of the view that quite a substantial latent risk existed in the light that it was the defendant’s own evidence that different people did come to his home to consume drug, although he said these people would bring drug there. The starting point is enhanced by 6 months for this reason.
The defendant has previous convictions for the offence of possession of dangerous drug. For this reason, the starting point should be further enhanced. In all the circumstances, I adopt an ultimate starting point of 2 years.
The defendant had pleaded guilty to this offence, he is therefore entitled to a one-third discount. The defendant, please stand up. For the above said reasons, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 16 months.