The defendant is convicted by the jury after trial of one count of trafficking in 2,734 grammes of a solid containing 470.3 grammes of cocaine.
Shortly stated, the defendant was intercepted at Customs Arrival Hall A of the Hong Kong International Airport on 24 August 2019 and that was for a routine check immediately after his returning from Taiwan. At the time, the defendant was pushing a trolley of his hand carry luggage which consisted of a suitcase, a backpack and a carrier bag. It was noticed that he had no check-in luggage at all. The cocaine which was the subject matter of the charge was concealed in six photo albums contained in two folders inside his suitcase.
Under caution, the defendant admitted that the suitcase belonged to him and that he had obtained the photo albums in Colombia from somebody. However, he denied any knowledge of the dangerous drugs. He said he did not know to whom the photo albums will be given upon his returning to Hong Kong nor whether he would be remunerated.
The movement records of the defendant show that he left Hong Kong on 2 July 2019. After that, according to the defendant’s testimony, he spent a night in Taipei before taking a series of transfer flights to Bogota. Stamps in his passport, P37, showed that he arrived in Colombia on 5 July 2019 and he did not depart from that country until 20 August 2019. That means he spent about 1½ months in Colombia. Besides, the defendant said in his evidence that he has spent two nights in Taipei prior to his returning to Hong Kong.
Defendant’s case, which was by the jury’s verdict rejected, is that he was just an innocent and unsuspecting dupe used by his childhood friend, Ar Yin, who sponsored his trip and asked him to bring parallel goods back to Hong Kong and that he did not know that dangerous drugs were concealed inside the photo albums.
It is an agreed fact that the cocaine in question had an estimated retail value of between about HK$650,000 and about 2,873,000 depending on its purity.
The Defendant’s Background
The defendant is born in Hong Kong in June 1997. His father works as a chef in Shanghai and his mother is working in Hong Kong as a factory worker. The defendant finished his secondary education in the summer of 2017 and then worked as a salesman in the shop selling sport shoes and earned about 16,000 to HK$18,000 a month. He has a clear record.
Mitigation
Mr Leung, counsel for the defendant, elaborates on the defendant’s family background and he emphasises the defendant’s relatively young age and his clear record. He asked that the court be as lenient as possible with the defendant.
Sentencing
The approach to the sentence of the offence of trafficking is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph. In the present case, I am satisfied that the defendant’s role was that of a courier. Therefore, his sentence is to be determined primarily by reference to the relevant tariff and the quantity of the dangerous drug concerned. The fact that he brought the dangerous drug into Hong Kong is an aggravating factor (see HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun).
The tariffs for trafficking in cocaine follow those of trafficking in heroin (see HKSAR v Rojas).
For the present purpose, the tariffs are laid down in HKSAR v Lau Tak Ming which says that trafficking in 400 to 600 grammes of a narcotic attracts a sentence of between 15 to 17 years’ imprisonment after trial. In the present case which involves 470.3 grammes of narcotic, I adopt 16 years and 9 months’ imprisonment as the arithmetical starting point.
In view of the fact that there was an international element, I add 11 months on top of the arithmetical starting point. Therefore the overall starting point for the defendant is 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
I trust that Mr Leung has said all that can be said on the defendant’s behalf in mitigation. However, it is well established that neither young age nor a clear record may reduce the sentence for trafficking (see HKSAR v Lau Tak Ming and HKSAR v Hong Chang Chi). Besides, the defendant is convicted after a re-trial. The jury in the first trial was hung.
I can see no reasons which may reduce the defendant’s sentence. Therefore the defendant is sentenced to 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.