COURT: Defendant, on 22 August 2022, you pleaded guilty to an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs before a magistrate seating at the Eastern Magistracy. As a result of your plea of guilty, you were committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence. You admitted that on 13 May 2021, on the 4th Floor of Nos 69-71 Granville Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, you unlawfully trafficked in 1,862.4 grammes of tablets containing 531.6 grammes of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine. This drug is commonly known as MDMA or colloquially as ‘Ecstasy’.
The Summary of Facts to which you have admitted can be summarised as follows. On 8 May 2021, a parcel was selected by a Customs and Excise officer at the airmail centre of Hong Kong International Airport for examination. The parcel was sent from Germany to a flat at 69 Granville Road, 4th Floor, Flat C, Tsim Sha Tsui, to a Mr James Hyungsik.
The declaration on the parcel stated it was a wedding gown and ladies lapper. After examination of the parcel, the drugs as stated in the charge was found in corrugated paper sandwiched on four surfaces of the carton box. A controlled operation was therefore conducted by the Customs and Excise who disguised himself as a postman.
On 13 May 2021, when the Customs and Excise officer was walking up the building with the parcel disguised as a postman, the defendant approached him, and that is the building at Granville Road, and said in English “That is my parcel.” When he asked if she was the recipient, the defendant said she was. The customs officer and the defendant then walked up to the address together.
On the 4th floor of the building, the officer showed the defendant the airway bill affixed on the parcel and the defendant again confirmed she was the recipient. The defendant produced her identity card for verification. The defendant showed the officer a WhatsApp message from a person named Megan on her mobile phone, which was the same number as the consignee’s phone number stated on the airway bill. The officer called that number and an English speaking female answered the call. The officer asked that female whether she had a parcel to collect, the answer was “yes” and she instructed the officer to pass the parcel to the defendant.
The officer then asked the defendant again for her identification for verification to which the defendant gave him her Form 8 recognisance. The defendant acknowledged receipt of the parcel and took the parcel from the Customs officer. After defendant had received the parcel from the officer, the operation turned overt. The defendant was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs.
In summary, the defendant said the parcel did not belong to her. Her friend Megan had sent her to collect the parcel and gave her details a few days earlier. In the morning of 13 May, she was asked by Megan to go to No 69 Granville Road to collect the parcel. She would wait for a phone call from Megan or another person Jack to confirm which hotel to take the parcel to. She would receive a monetary reward of $5,000 for collecting the parcel. Thereafter, after the Customs officers checked the defendant’s mobile phone, the defendant agreed to conduct a further controlled delivery operation for the Customs and Excise. Despite trying to contact Megan and Emeca, Megan’s boyfriend, the other person involved with the parcel, there was no reply.
Thereafter, she contacted a person named Jack who was also connected with the parcel by WhatsApp and Jack sent her an image of a hotel business card with an address and this address was at Chungking Mansions, the United Co-Operate Hotel. Defendant was then escorted to Chungking Mansions and waited thereat.
At about 1.50 pm on the same day, Emeca suddenly sent the defendant a WhatsApp message with the words “Police” and “Get you arrested”. The defendant then tried to call Megan and Jack again but their phones were disconnected. In the end, no one turned up and the further controlled operation failed. The defendant took part in two further video-recorded interviews, stating how she met Megan and how she became involved to collect the parcel.
As to the defendant’s mitigation in this case, Mr Andrew Raffell, her counsel, has submitted written mitigation and has expanded upon that today in his oral mitigation. The defendant is now 38 years of age. She is from the Philippines and is married but the marriage has broken up. She has four children ranging in age from teenage to adult. She has one previous conviction in 2016 for an offence of breach of condition of stay to which she was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment suspended for 3 years.
The defendant first came to Hong Kong employed as a domestic helper in 2011. Her employment was terminated and since 2017, she has been a Form 8 holder. I am informed by Mr Raffell at the time she committed this offence, she was suffering from depression because of her situation within Hong Kong and her marital and family problems. It is his submission that at the time the defendant was an easy target of exploitation and had been used by someone she regarded as a friend. She was tempted and she fell for the temptation but this was something out of character.
I have been informed that she has tried to provide Customs and Excise with information concerning the people who got her involved in this crime and other information. It is his submission that the defendant is so far down the chain, as clearly she was a courier or a mule, that she was not able to give any fruitful or positive information although she had tried her best to do so.
This sentence was adjourned from 28 October last year, 2022, for the prosecution to see whether the defendant could provide any or some useful information and whether she could be considered to be a prosecution witness. I have received a letter from the prosecution that despite providing two non-prejudicial statements, they prosecution has decided the defendant will not be called as a prosecution witness in any proceedings against any person. As stated by Mr Raffell, as she was so far down the chain, perhaps she was unable to give any positive assistance. I accept in this case, defendant, that you were used as a courier and mule to collect this parcel of drugs. Just for collecting this parcel of course you knew that the reward would have been very high and that you would receive $5,000 just for collecting a parcel. I accept that you were suffering from depression because of your situation but you took the risk and this is the risk that you took.
I have noted that you have attempted to assist the prosecution, but unfortunately this has not come to any fruition and in the circumstances I am unable to give you any discount on that basis.
You were trafficking in the drugs commonly known as ‘Ecstasy’ or MDMA. For trafficking in this type of drug, it is similar to trafficking in ketamine. The guideline case for sentencing in trafficking in heroin is that of Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. The amount of ‘Ecstasy’ you were trafficking in was 531.6 grammes. In following the sentencing guideline, that falls in the bracket of between 300 and 600 grammes which attracts a starting point of between 9 to 12 years’ imprisonment had you been convicted after trial.
Had you been convicted after trial, defendant, I would have taken a starting point of 11 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. You had committed this offence whilst you were a Form 8 holder which is an aggravating factor and following the case of HKSAR v Ali Saif [2018] HKEC 1567 at paragraph 17, for trafficking in dangerous drugs as a Form 8 holder is a serious aggravating factor and for that factor, I enhance the sentence by 6 months, making a notional sentencing point of 11 years and 9 months’ imprisonment had you been convicted after trial.
Your strongest and greatest mitigating factor is your plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity and for that you shall be awarded the full one-third discount. And in the circumstances, you shall be sentenced to 7 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.