The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted the facts pertaining to the charge in the court below. He confirmed his guilty plea and admission of the Summary of Facts before me. I convict the defendant on his own plea and admission. The charge concerned 132.71 grammes of a solid containing 53.53 grammes of cocaine.
“On 26 July 2018, during a police operation, PC19374 saw the defendant walking out of Room A, Flat C2, 9th Floor, Block C, Great George Building, No 11-19 Great George Street, Wan Chai, in Hong Kong (“the Room”). As soon as the officer declared his police identity, the defendant tried to close the door but was stopped by the officer. Upon search, nothing illegal was found on the defendant’s body but the officers found in the Room inter alia:
On the floor near the television:
(a) A pair of shoes containing 43 plastic bags containing a total of 24 grammes of a solid containing 11.5 grammes of cocaine;
(b) A pair of shoes containing one plastic bag containing a total of 103 grammes of a solid containing 40 grammes of cocaine.
Near the top of a cabinet:
(a) A white box containing three electronic scales with batteries which did not contain any dangerous drug;
(b) A pile of empty resealable plastic bags.
Near the window:
(a) Five keys, four of them were able to be used to gain access to the Room;
(b) Cash of $5,020;
(c) Eight plastic bags containing a total of 4.81 grammes of a solid containing 2.03 grammes of cocaine;
(d) Personal documents.
The defendant was arrested for trafficking. Under caution, he remained silent. The defendant’s fingerprint was lifted inside the Room but not on the dangerous drug packaging.
In a cautioned VRI conducted with the assistance of a Spanish interpreter, the defendant said inter alia:
(a) He arrived in Hong Kong on 7 July 2018;
(b) He lost his passport;
(c) He had been staying in the room since then. He was permitted by a friend to stay there. He could not provide contact information of that friend;
(d) No one else lived in the Room;
(e) Only he had the keys of the Room;
(f) He was not a drug abuser;
(g) Regarding the dangerous drugs found inside the two pairs of shoes, he said he found them three days ago under the refrigerator in the room when he was doing some cleaning work. He then hid the dangerous drugs inside the shoes;
(h) He believed they were cocaine;
(i) He was aware of the eight bags of dangerous drugs found near the window;
(j) The cash of $5,020 belonged to him.
As in July 2018 in Hong Kong, the retail value of the cocaine in this case was estimated to be around HK$137,000 to HK$157,000.
The defendant now admits that at the time he was unlawfully trafficking in the cocaine found in the Room.”
The defendant was born in Colombia. He came to Hong Kong on his Colombian passport. He has a clear record in Hong Kong. He had received education up to primary level in Colombia. He is a divorcee with no relatives in Hong Kong.
Mr Raffell in his detail written submissions submits in mitigation that a starting point that the court should adopt in this case should be 8 years’ imprisonment given the quantity of the drugs involved. Mr Raffell submits that the defendant is entitled to the full one-third reduction for his early guilty plea. Mr Raffell submits there are no aggravating features in the present case as there is no evidence that the defendant was connected in any way with the importation of the cocaine into Hong Kong. And there is no evidence that the defendant came to Hong Kong for the purpose of trafficking in dangerous drugs.
Mr Raffell submits that the basis of the defendant’s guilty plea is that the defendant found the cocaine in the flat where he was staying, and he realised that it was dangerous drugs. But instead of notifying the authorities or destroying the drugs, the defendant decided to keep them in the flat until either claimed by the owner or instructed as to what to do with them. Mr Raffell submits that it is no evidence that the defendant was storing the drugs for the purpose of selling them on the street. And there is no evidence that the defendant was involved in any such activity.
I agree with Mr Raffell that given the quantity of the cocaine involved, applying the tariff in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370, a starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. Though the defendant is a visitor from Colombia, absent any evidence that he imported the dangerous drug into Hong Kong or that he travelled to Hong Kong for the purpose of trafficking in dangerous drugs, I see no reason to enhance the starting point. And absent any other mitigating factors and aggravating features, I adopt 8 years’ imprisonment as a starting point in this case. The defendant is entitled to the full one-third reduction for his early guilty plea.
For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, that is 64 months.