She pleaded guilty to both counts before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.
Now, the facts of the case. On 17 February 2021, the defendant was spotted by a Customs Officer conducting an anti-narcotics operation to be acting suspiciously in Tai Kok Tsui area. The defendant was holding a black plastic bag at the time. When the officer revealed his identity and tried to intercept the defendant, the defendant threw away the black plastic bag. She also tried to push the officer away to escape, but she was subdued.
She was arrested and cautioned. She said she was scared of being arrested, so she threw away the plastic bag and tried to escape.
In the presence of the defendant, the black plastic bag was opened and inside was found what later confirmed to be 476 grammes of a solid containing 434 grammes of cocaine. The defendant was cautioned again and she said, among other things, that the substance was cocaine and she helped someone called 班長 to collect the drug and to deliver it to a car. She did not receive any reward for the delivery job. So that is the 1st count.
The defendant was then taken to her declared address in Tai Kok Tsui but she could not open the door, so the property owner was summoned to the scene. The owner confirmed that the defendant was the tenant and opened the door. A search was conducted inside in the presence of the defendant. A total of 36.19 grammes of a solid containing 33.85 grammes of cocaine was found inside. There were also five sets of electronic scales with traces of cocaine. A drug inhaling apparatus was also found inside the defendant’s bedroom. Also was found HK$76,530.
The defendant was cautioned again. She said, among other things, that the dangerous drug found inside was cocaine and for her own consumption. The scales were for packing the cocaine for her own consumption and the money was her savings for paying rent. So that is the facts for the Count 2.
Back at the Customs Office, and in the presence of the defendant’s mother and a lawyer, the defendant indicated that she wished to correct the record of her verbal caution. She wanted to say she knew the substance was ‘Coke’ instead of “cocaine”. Regarding the money, some were lai sees, some savings for rental and some were given by her family members. She also wanted to change the reference to her being scared of being arrested when asked why she tried to escape. The answer should be, “I don’t have anything to say.”
A video-recorded interview was conducted but the defendant refused to participate. The defendant admitted before the magistrate that she trafficked the dangerous drug particularised in those two counts.
Background and Mitigation
According to the antecedents statement, the defendant was born in August 2003, so she was 17 when she committed the offences. She has a clear record. The defendant claimed to have received education up to Form 2 and she started working as a waitress at the age of 16.
Miss Maria So, counsel for the defendant, gives me more background information. The defendant was born in China. She lived with her mother and maternal grandparents in Shenzhen until she was about 6, when she came to Hong Kong to join her father. Shortly after her parents divorced, her mother went back to Mainland. She was sent to the Children’s Home as her father was unable to take care of her. During her stay there, her father hardly visited her. Then her mother moved to Hong Kong permanently when she was 11 and the defendant then lived with her mother. Her mother had a son with her boyfriend and she suffered from mental illness. The defendant did not get sufficient care and attention from the mother. The situation only improved after the grandparents came to live in Hong Kong. The mother then started working full-time to support the family and the defendant and her younger brother was then cared for by the grandparents.
The defendant study up to Form 2 and move out to live with her friends, worked as a waitress earning $500 per day. And during this time she met the undesirable peers. She came from a broken family with no supervision and discipline, and she developed the habit of drug-taking, and the defendant was tested positive for cocaine in her urine test when she was sent to the Lai King Detention Centre.
Miss So submitted that the defendant foolishly agreed to collect and store the drug in her flat without knowing the quantity. She was cooperative upon arrest. Her role was that of a keeper following instructions of others. The defendant is remorseful and pleaded guilty before the magistrate.
Upon reflection, the defendant realised her mother and grandparents loved and cared for her. She appreciates the visits by her mother and grandparents, and she realise she has to equip herself for a better future. She had enrolled to study Form 3 and hopes to sit for the DSE in due course. The defendant’s mother and grandparents continue to support the defendant and paid regular visits.
Miss So submitted that the defendant acted as the storekeeper. There was no evidence or admission that she did more than that. The defendant claimed that the dangerous drug found inside the flat was for her own consumption. In oral submission, Miss So said the defendant acted as a messenger. Miss So also confirmed that the amount the defendant claimed to be going to consume was not significant enough to render a deduction from the appropriate sentence.
Miss So urged this Court to be as lenient as possible when considering the sentence within the appropriate band. The defendant, her mother, her paternal aunt and a registered social worker surnamed Yu have all written to this Court on behalf of the defendant asking for leniency. As submitted by Miss So on behalf of the defendant, the defendant expressed deep regret for her foolishness in committing the offences.
For the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, a person convicted upon indictment is liable to life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million. The defendant have been convicted of two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug. I am of the view that both offences were committed on the same day and the facts were closely linked, so the proper approach was to have regard to the total amount of dangerous drug in Count 1 and Count 2 to arrive at an overall starting point. There are few authorities on that such as HKSAR v Chow Yu Chi, HKSAR v Cheung Kwok Leung and also HKSAR v Wong To.
The total amount of cocaine involved in this case was 467.85 grammes which falls into the band of 400 to 600 grammes set out in the case of Lau Tak Ming, with a starting point between 15 to 20 years.
On the evidence before me, the defendant was more than a mere courier. With those electronic scales found inside the place she lived with traces of cocaine, she was clearly weighing and packaging the dangerous drug before delivering them to others.
Having taken into account the quantity of cocaine, the defendant’s role in the trafficking, how she became involved in drug trafficking and her relatively young age at the time of the offence, being 17, I am of the view that a starting point of 15 years, which is the lowest within the appropriate band, is appropriate.
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity and is entitled to the full one-third discount. I do not see any other grounds to further reduce the sentence. So for the actual sentence is one of 10 years. So for both offences, for Count 1, 10 years, Count 2, 10 years concurrent, making a total of 10 years.