The facts of the case may be summarised as follows:
The defendant was intercepted by customs officers at the Customs Arrival Hall of the Hong Kong Macau Ferry Terminal. He had with him a suitcase in which the dangerous drug in question was concealed underneath a board which in turn was underneath the silver lining of the suitcase.
The jury found the defendant having imported the dangerous drug, and also his purpose was to be a courier of the drug into Hong Kong.
The defendant is a Japanese citizen, now 27 years of age. He completed high school education in Fiji and then returned to Japan to work as a chef. He did not have any criminal conviction record in Hong Kong.
In mitigation, learned counsel for the defence, Ms Herbert, asked the court to accept that the role of the defendant was that of a courier and stressed that the defendant had participated in a controlled delivery in which he did his best to assist the authority in apprehending the person involved.
What the defendant trafficked in was 1.91 kilogrammes of a solid containing 1.24 kilogrammes of cocaine.
The Court of Appeal held in AG v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 2 HKCLR 69 that in a case of trafficking in cocaine, the guideline in Queen v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 is applicable since the narcotic content of the two drugs is very closely alike in the degree of harm. In Lau Tak Ming, a sentence of more than 20 years’ imprisonment was suggested for a case of trafficking in heroin if the narcotic content is over 600 grammes. In the subsequent case of HKSAR v Abdallah, CACC 304/2008, the Court of Appeal held that a sentence of 23 to 26 years’ imprisonment should be considered if the narcotic content was between 1,200 grammes and 4,000 grammes.
I see no reason to justify any departure from the sentencing tariff. I consider sentence on the basis that the role of the defendant was that of a courier. There was a significant aggravating feature in that the defendant was bringing the drug into Hong Kong. Having regard to the case of Abdallah and bearing in mind the risk of excessive enhancement, I am of the view that the starting point should be enhanced by about 2 years. Having considered the whole circumstances, in my judgment, only a notional sentence after trial of 25 years is sufficient to reflect the nature and seriousness of the case.
I note that the defendant did not have a criminal record and that he had voluntarily participated in a controlled delivery. The exercise did not yield result. However, I am satisfied that the defendant has been cooperative in the exercise and there is no indication that the lack of result was due to any fault on the part of the defendant.
In the circumstances, having regard to HKSAR v Jardin Rodela Maningas, CACC 278/2011, and HKSAR v Chan Oi Hing, CACC 239/2015, I am persuaded to give the defendant a discount of 21 months for his effort in assisting the authority. Having considered the whole circumstances, including what learned counsel said ably on the defendant’s behalf, and having regard to the consideration process as stated in the case of Herry Jane Yusuph, in my judgment, this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to.
The defendant, please stand up. For the reasons I have mentioned, I sentence you to an immediate imprisonment term of 23 years and 3 months.