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, personal background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf. I also have regard to the recent Court of Appeal decision in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph, CACC 93/2019.
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows:
When a search was conducted on the defendant who was found standing at a bicycle parking area, nine transparent resealable plastic bags, each containing cocaine, were found in his locked suitcase. The total quantity was 17,420.4 grammes of a solid containing 14,627.6 grammes of cocaine. The defendant was arrested. Under caution, he admitted that he collected the suitcase, knowing that cocaine was contained inside, for a promised reward of $1 million.
At the time prior to his arrest, he was taking steps to place the suitcase in the bicycle parking area which was near his home. He did not want to keep the drug at his home.
I was told that the defendant is 25 years of age. He has studied up to Form 3 and has worked in a restaurant and also in the field of logistic, delivery and construction. He has criminal conviction record. He was in 2017 convicted for fraud and two offences related to triad society. For these offences, he was sentenced to receive training at a rehabilitation centre.
In mitigation, learned counsel for the defence, Ms So, told the court that the parents of the defendant divorced when he was young. His father remarried soon, and since then has not been living with the defendant. The defendant has also lost touch with his mother. He has been living with his elderly parents(grandparents?), both suffering from ill health. He gave them financial support every month. Ms So told the court that the defendant committed the offence when he succumbed to the temptation of earning quick money at the time he was out of employment for several months due to social unrest at the time. Despite he knew he was dealing with drug, he had no idea of the exact quantity involved.
Ms So stressed that the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and that he is now in full remorse. The defendant has been cooperative with the Customs and provided them with assistance. Ms So also reminded the court that despite the defendant does not have a clear record, this is the first time he is convicted of a drug-related offence. The family is still very supportive to the defendant.
The defence submitted a letter written by the aunts of the defendant who said the defendant is in full remorse. They plead leniency on behalf of the defendant and ask the court to take into account the fact that the grandparents who brought up the defendant are now of old age and not enjoying good health.
The Court of Appeal held in AG v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 2 HKCLR 69 that in a case of trafficking in cocaine, the tariff for trafficking in heroin is applicable.
The total quantity of narcotic content involved in this case was 14,627.6 grammes of cocaine.
In the case of HKSAR v Abdallah, CACC 304/2008, the Court of Appeal held that a sentence of 26 to 30 years’ imprisonment should be considered if the narcotic content being trafficked in is 4,000 to 15,000 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 played was at the low end of the trafficking hierarchy. I am of the view that only a starting point of 29 years and 10 months is sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the present case.
The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for his guilty plea before a magistrate. There is also information before me. For that, I am persuaded to give the defendant a further discount of 4 months. Having considered the whole circumstances including what learned counsel said on his behalf, in my judgment, this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to in this case.
Defendant, please stand up. For the reasons I have mentioned, I sentence you to an immediate imprisonment term of 19½ years.