The facts are that on 11 June he was stopped in Winslow Street carrying a carton inside of which was a machine. The machine was subsequently examined and inside a secret compartment was found the drugs which relates to the drug in the 1st count.
In the 2nd count, the facts are that upon arrest, the defendant’s mobile telephone was seized from him and in the mobile telephone, someone had sent him a number and an astute customs officer who was examining the telephone thought that the number must relate to an airway bill and so brought that to the attention of the officer in charge of the case and the inspector then put that number on the watch list.
When the parcel arrived in Hong Kong, the parcel was duly opened by customs officers and inside of which were found wooden figures and wooden beads and in the cardboard carton itself was found secreted in between layers of cardboard were the dangerous drugs, the cocaine which is the subject matter of the 2nd count.
Also, the evidence which was brought against the defendant was that the consignee’s name in Hong Kong was sent by the defendant to another person, a person called Nicky. And that very address of that person called Albert Simon with an address in Hong Kong was the person named as the recipient of that carton. And the telephone number was one of the telephones that was found on the defendant.
So the defendant had in his defence at the trial denied knowledge of these dangerous drugs and placed the blame on others. However, by the jury’s verdict, it is clear that the jury found that he was the person who knew that there were drugs inside the machine and who was conspiring with Nicky to import the drugs into Hong Kong.
Now, drug trafficking is a very very serious offence in Hong Kong. Customs officers, police are battling day and night to stop this nefarious trade in dangerous drugs and much of Hong Kong people’s money, taxpayer’s money is poured into this type of investigation.
The defendant is a Form 8 holder. He has abused the hospitality of Hong Kong in allowing him to stay and walk freely with a Form 8 document and so there is no mitigating factor as far as I can see in relation to the defendant.
Ms Mohamed can only say very little in mitigation and she has said that well his role is really one of more of a courier than a senior position in the whole enterprise. However, couriers are very important people too because without them these drugs will not be able to move so freely from one person to another.
This case also involves an international element as the carton that the defendant was holding was sent from overseas and the drugs in the second count was also sent to Hong Kong from overseas. So there is also the aggravating factor of the international element.
Ms Mohamed also submitted that he did participate in a controlled delivery operation after his arrest. Although it was unsuccessful but however it had been recognised by the Court of Appeal in the HKSAR v Lo Sze Tung Stephanie [2019] 1 HKC 309 that it is a factor that may be considered in the defendant’s favour. Although the controlled delivery operation was not successful, however he did participate in it.
So all in all, I have considered the sentencing guidelines in the Abdallah case which is reported at [2009] 2 HKC 197 where for trafficking in heroin and cocaine, the sentencing guidelines is that the quantity between 600 to 1,200 would merit a sentence of between 20 to 23 years. Now, the total quantity of drugs in this case on both counts add up to 993.2 grammes of cocaine which would merit a sentence of 22 years.
And then there is the international element in this case. I have decided that for the international element, it is an aggravating factor and that would increase the sentence by 1 year.
Also I do consider that it is a further aggravation that the defendant is a Form 8 holder who decided to commit such a crime in Hong Kong which I would normally add 6 months on top of the sentence for that.
However, because he participated in the controlled delivery operation, I would therefore consider the 6 months to be in his favour because of his participation. So I will not add the 6 months in relation to him being a Form 8 holder. So the only element I would add is the international element which aggravates the sentence by 1 year, making a total of 23 years.
There is no other mitigating factor that I can see so in relation to Count 1, I will sentence the defendant to 12 years’ imprisonment. In relation to Count 2, I will sentence him to 20 years’ imprisonment, 10 years of which will be served consecutively and the rest concurrently, making it a total of 22 years and I will add 1 year for the international element. So the defendant goes to prison for 23 years.