The defendant pleaded guilty at committal on 21 August 2015, to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to Section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. The dangerous drug was 2,000 grammes of a solid containing 933 grammes of cocaine. Today, before me, the defendant confirmed that plea, as well as the facts to which he had pleaded at committal.
The defendant, a South African national, had arrived in Hong Kong at the airport on a flight from Nairobi. His journey had originated in Cotonou in Benin. His suitcase was searched, and it was found to have a concealed side compartment, which contained suspected dangerous drugs. The defendant was arrested and cautioned and later took part in an unsuccessful controlled delivery.
In a video-recorded interview, the defendant said three men in South Africa had asked him to take the suitcase to Hong Kong, for a payment of 20,000 South African Rand. He was not allowed to open the suitcase, nor, despite his asking, was he told what was in the suitcase. He was supplied with an air ticket and hotel accommodation in Cotonou. The defendant was given the suitcase at the hotel, and subsequently took it to Hong Kong. He agreed to deliver the suitcase to obtain the money offered. The defendant admits and accepts that he was trafficking in the seized dangerous drugs.
Subsequent analysis by the Government Chemist confirmed the quantity and type of the dangerous drug as is set out in the particulars of charge. At the time of the defendant’s arrest, the estimated retail value of the dangerous drug was HK$1,954,000.
The defendant has a clear record in Hong Kong. He is aged 46 and was living with his wife, step-daughter and mother-in-law prior to his arrest. He was himself an orphan, and was reared by foster parents who later adopted him. They are now deceased.
He left high school in 1998 and was two years in the army where he attended mining college and obtained a certificate in dynamite blasting. He worked thereafter as a miner, and after that as a welding worker.
For the two years before his accident, he was unemployed as he had injured his right leg in a traffic accident in 2003; he had a metal pin and plate in his right leg, and he was unable to work as a result. He was indebted to the extent of 30,000 South African Rand at the time the men approached him. He was being pressed by loansharks who threatened violence to him and his family. It was for that reason he committed the offence.
Today, the defendant has put before the court a letter, reiterating his family and personal circumstances, his employment history, and expressing his remorse for the crime he has committed.
I have also had sight of a medical report, which covers the defendant’s medical history while he has been in prison since the time of his arrest. That confirms the former fracture of the right hip femur and fibula and confirms the operation that was performed to put in pin and plate. It is obvious from the report that his injury is causing him trouble even now, and there are regular visits to the doctor to obtain pain relief. It is likely that after the defendant has been sentenced, steps will be taken to ensure that his pin and plate are removed.
The defendant’s counsel relied on the defendant’s early plea of guilty, his immediate confession, and his assistance with the controlled delivery as mitigating factors. There is no dispute about the tariff or the enhancement of the sentence, but the defendant sought leniency for his early plea and cooperation.
The sentencing guideline for dangerous drugs of quantities over 600 grammes are set out in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437, a quantity of narcotic between 600 grammes and 1,200 grammes attract a sentence between 20 and 23 years’ imprisonment. Here, the narcotic quantity is 933 grammes.
The presence of an aggravating factor which was derived from the importation to Hong Kong of the dangerous drug, referred to as an international element, requires an enhancement of sentence. The narcotic quantity here is below the level which requires a minimum enhancement of two years. Here, HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun CACC 85/2014 sets out the enhancement for quantities below 1 kilogramme. Between 50 and 1000 grammes, the suggested range of enhancement is from 1 to 2 years. As the narcotic quantity is 933 grammes, any enhancement would be at the higher end of the range.
I take account of the mitigation advanced, the most cogent being the plea of guilty, which I accept was an early plea, I note too the co-operation of the defendant from the outset, referring to his assistance with the controlled delivery.
I adopt a starting point for sentence of 22 years, and in the exercise of my discretion, I enhance that by 1 year, which makes the starting point of sentence 23 years. That starting point for sentence is discounted by one-third, the sentence I pass is 15 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.