HKSAR v. Shi Ruifeng

DCCC 130/2022

[2022] HKDC 725

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 130 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The amended Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant can be summarised as follows.

2.At about 2025 hours on 14 September 2021, two police officers on patrol saw the defendant getting out from a taxi near a building situated at Eastern Street, Sai Ying Pun.  The defendant looked around furtively while tightly holding a black cross-body bag with his right hand. The defendant entered the building and walked up the stairs.  He took out a piece of white tissue from his black cross-body bag and attempted to place it at an electrical wall box of the building between the ground floor and the first floor. 

3.Police officers intercepted the defendant.  They found that the piece of tissue held in his right hand contained a transparent plastic bag containing 13.8 grammes of a solid containing 11.5 grammes of cocaine. 

4.The estimated street value of the above cocaine is about HK$18,000. 

5.Under caution, the defendant said someone asked him to take this package to the building for another person.  A video-recorded interview was subsequently conducted with the defendant during which he stated inter alia that he obtained the above cocaine from an unknown female near Kwun Tong Market earlier the same day.  The defendant then boarded a taxi and went to Eastern Street.  He intended to place the above cocaine at the staircase and then to call the unknown female who would in turn contact the unknown buyer to pick up the above cocaine.  He would earn HK$500 when he completed the delivery.  He was himself addicted to methamphetamine hydrochloride.  The defendant now admits that he was in possession of the above narcotic contents for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. 

6.The defendant is 37 years of age.  He has five previous convictions not similar to the present charge.  In her written mitigation submission and oral remarks in court, Ms Zahir, counsel for the defendant, tells the court that the defendant himself has been a user of ‘Ice’ for 10-odd years.  He would spend around $100 twice per week to feed his addiction.  He committed the present offence in order to feed his addiction. 

7.Counsel has handed up a urine test report of the defendant when he was remanded in Lai Chi Kok.  I am told that the defendant is 37 years of age, born in mainland China.  He came to Hong Kong when he was 18 years old.  He returned to mainland when he was 27 years old and recently returned to Hong Kong in January 2021.  Prior to arrest, the defendant had been unemployed for six months.  He is divorced, living with his mother and younger brother.  He indicated his wish to learn to become an electrician in Hong Kong.  Counsel also submits a letter written by the defendant in which he demonstrates his remorse.  Defence counsel submits with reference to the Court of Appeal decision that 10 to 50 grammes of cocaine would warrant a sentence of 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment.  She asks the court to consider a sentence at the low end of the band. 

8.Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence.  The Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines for trafficking in different types of drugs.  The present case involves the trafficking of 11.5 grammes of cocaine. In AG v Rojas, the Court of Appeal decided that the sentencing guideline for trafficking in heroin as laid down in R v Lau Tak Ming was applicable to trafficking in cocaine.  According to these authorities, for trafficking between 10 and 50 grammes of cocaine, the tariff band is 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment. 

9.As a matter of pure arithmetic calculation, the starting point would be imprisonment for slightly over 5 years and 1 month.  I accept that the defendant was merely a courier in this case.  In the circumstances of the case, I use 5 years’ imprisonment as the starting point. 

10.In terms of mitigation, the only effective mitigating factor is the defendant’s timely guilty plea for which I will give him one-third discount of the sentence.  There is no other effective mitigating factor that may reduce the sentence further. 

11.The defendant is therefore sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment.