On the 2nd day of August 2018, at around 9 o’clock in the evening, the defendant was spotted by the police acting suspiciously on the driver’s seat of a vehicle parked at Reclamation Street, Mongkok.
Upon search of the vehicle by the police, five plastic bags containing the relevant drugs were found inside a bag placed in the storage compartment of the vehicle. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was delivering the drugs for someone for a reward as his mother was ill and needed money for her medical treatment.
The defendant is 24 years old. He has no previous criminal conviction. He is single. According to Ms So, counsel representing the defendant, the defendant is engaged and was planning to hold his wedding next year. He was educated up to Form 4 level. Before his arrest, he had been unemployed for two years, and before that he had been working in a stage scenery company for five years. According to Ms So, the defendant and his mother relied on CSSA for living since his unemployment.
The defendant was living with his mother and younger brother before his arrest. His parents divorced some 10 years ago but the defendant maintained close contact with his father’s side of the family. When the defendant’s father left the family, the defendant’s mother suffered from depression and tried to commit suicide. Thereafter, the defendant’s mother requires regular psychiatric follow-up in every one or two months. According to Ms So, the defendant cares very much about his mother and he would accompany his mother to medical appointments.
Prior to the defendant’s arrest, the defendant’s mother was found to have suffered from haemorrhoids and required surgery, but the waiting time at public hospital is over one year and the fees for a private doctor for the surgery amount to around HK$30,000. Ms So said the defendant wanted to earn quick money for the medical fees of his mother as well as for the purpose of his wedding. It was for these purposes the defendant had the stupid decision to commit the present offence.
According to Ms So, she was instructed that the reward for defendant to deliver the relevant drugs was HK$2,000 plus a packet of cocaine for the defendant’s own consumption. However, as I have indicated to Ms So, I found difficulties to accept that the defendant can receive a packet of cocaine for his own consumption as a packet of cocaine may cost HK$30,000. It is simply unrealistic to suggest that the reward as a mere courier can amount to this level. Although the urine test result of the defendant was positive for use of cocaine, I am unable to accept that a substantial part of the drugs found on the vehicle was for the defendant’s own consumption.
The value of the cocaine found was in total over HK$150,000. The defendant was on a vehicle intended to deliver the drugs to others on his own admission. The defendant was unemployed. For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that a substantial part of the drugs were for his own consumption.
Ms So has placed before me several letters for mitigation written by defendant’s relatives and friends. The letters were written by, respectively, the defendant’s mother, paternal grandmother, his aunt and uncle and two close friends of the defendant’s mother. They all said in the letters that the defendant had a good character and was very caring of his mother. They said the defendant turned wayward due to his broken family and they all pledged for this court’s leniency towards the defendant.
The defendant himself also wrote to this court, saying that he is now very remorseful. He regretted about hurting his family because of his foolish deed, and he wishes to continue his study in the prison so as to become a social worker to help others in the future.
Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence. A person convicted of this offence will inevitably face with a long-term imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing tariffs in respect of different kinds of dangerous drugs. For trafficking in cocaine, this court should follow the tariff laid down in the Court of Appeal case Lau Tak Ming. In that case, the Court of Appeal decided that for trafficking in a quantity of 50 grammes to 200 grammes of cocaine, the proper starting point of sentence should be 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment. As submitted by Ms So, in the present case, in view of the quantity of cocaine involved, the proper starting point should be 8 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
As I have mentioned above, I do not accept that a substantial part of the cocaine was for the defendant’s own consumption and hence I will not give any discount on sentence in this regard. The heavier sentence imposed for this kind of offence is for the purpose of general deterrence. Usual mitigation like clear record and financial difficulties are not valid mitigating factors. The only significant mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s guilty plea.
The defendant pleaded not guilty at the committal hearing. According to the Court of Appeal case of Ngo Van Nam, the defendant is not entitled to the full one-third discount. However, as submitted by Ms So and evidenced by a letter the defendant wrote to a social worker the next day after his plea of not guilty, the defendant had intended to plead guilty but had somehow said, indicated not guilty at the hearing due to misunderstanding. In these exceptional circumstances, I am minded to give a full one-third discount to the defendant for his plea of guilty notwithstanding that he had indicated his plea of guilty to the court a few days after the committal hearing. And hence, the starting point of 8 years and 9 months’ imprisonment is reduced to 5 years and 10 months due to the defendant’s plea of guilty.
Lastly, as evidenced by the letters written to this court, the defendant had all along been a responsible and caring son to his mother. As early as when the defendant was arrested, he had already said to police officers that the reason for his committing the present offence was to provide for the medical expenses to his mother. And for this, I find it appropriate to give the defendant a further reduction of sentence of 4 months. The defendant is therefore sentenced to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.