COURT: The defendant is Turan Mohammad Nazrul Islam. Now, the defendant faced two counts. Count 1, was trafficking in a dangerous drug, one dangerous drug. Count 2, trafficking in dangerous drugs, more than one. Both counts were contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. The defendant pleaded guilty before me and upon admitting the facts in support of the charges, I found him guilty as charged.
The facts admitted by the defendant before me. On the day in question, a team of police officers laid ambush outside a flat at Portland Street, Mong Kok. So the defendant was intercepted when he left a flat in question. And he was carrying a bag at the time. Inside the bag, the police found three packets containing a total of 3,000 grammes of a solid in form of blocks and containing a total of 2,206 grammes of cocaine. So that’s the dangerous drug referred in the 1st count.
Then the police found five keys and a mobile phone on the defendant. The police then escorted the defendant to the flat, and the flat had two rooms, A and B. Then from the bunch of keys taken from the defendant, the police was able to open Flat B.
So inside Room B, the police seized more dangerous drugs that were found on the bed and also from suitcases. There were five suitcases but only three of them contained dangerous drugs.
Now, first on the bed, there was one packet containing 999 grammes of a solid in a form of a block containing 841 grammes of cocaine, and one bag containing 6,640 grammes of a solid containing 15.4 grammes of methamphetamine and 88 grammes of heroin. And then a bag of resealable plastic bags, two electronic scales, and also a mobile phone.
Now, of the five suitcases, three had drugs inside. One had the pattern of the union jack, and that one had two bags containing a total of 10 kilogrammes of a solid containing 4.96 grammes of methamphetamine. One suitcase is red in colour, contained 13 bags containing a total of 74.05 kilogrammes of a solid and three bags containing traces of heroin. And then the last one is a black suitcase, and that one had 10 packets containing a total of 9,984 grammes of a solid. They are in form of blocks containing 7,261 grammes of cocaine. There is one plastic bag containing 1,420 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1,360 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, that is, ‘Ice’. There is also one bag containing a solid which had no drugs in it.
So the total narcotic weight of dangerous drugs seized inside this Flat B: 8,102 grammes of cocaine, 88 grammes of heroin, 1,360 grammes of ‘Ice’, and 20.36 grammes of methamphetamine. So those were Charge 2 come to.
At the scene, the defendant was arrested and cautioned. The defendant remained silent at the scene. And subsequently, a video-recorded interview with an interpreter was conducted. During this video-recorded interview, the defendant said a friend called him earlier and asked him to go to the flat. He admitted that he had two mobile phones. One was carried by him and the other one was found in the flat, Flat B. And he said that a friend gave him that other phone a long time ago. He provided password of the phone he carried and said that the mobile phone found in the flat had the same password.
So with the password, the police was able to look at the defendant’s phones, and extracted communication in both mobile phones. I do not think there is the need to refer to what exactly were the messages, just that in one message, the defendant mentioned he was nervous in moving the three suitcases from the taxi to the flat, and that the weight of the contents were to be 200 to 250 kilogrammes. And another one was that the defendant has sent photographs of the five suitcases inside the flat. He had sent photos of those five suitcases to someone, and police investigation involved finding DNA sample on one of the two electronic scales being the same as the defendant’s DNA.
(Discussion re DNA)
The street value of the drugs seized then for cocaine is $1,377 per gramme if it is in powder form or $2,357 per gramme in crack form. For ‘Ice’ or the methamphetamine, it is $649 per gramme. For heroin, it is $1,203 per gramme. So that being the street value per gramme, the value of the cocaine seized in the 1st count amounts to $4.13 million for powder or $7.07 million for crack form.
The estimated value of the drugs seized in Charge 2, that is, inside Flat B. For the cocaine found in one of the suitcases, it is $1,375,623 for powder or $2,354,643 for crack. So for the cocaine in another suitcase, it is $13.74 million for powder form or $23.53 million for crack form. And then for the ‘Ice’, it is $921,580.
The defendant admitted possession of the cocaine seized on him and all the dangerous drugs found inside this Flat B for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
Now, the background and mitigation. Now, according to the antecedent statement, the defendant was born in Bangladesh in 1984 and is now 39 years old. He had no criminal record in Hong Kong.
In mitigation, defence counsel, Mr Mughal, informed this Court that the defendant was a national of Bangladesh. He is married with one young daughter. He used to work as an accountant in Bangladesh. His wife was a housewife. The defendant came to Hong Kong in 2015 and sought asylum due to political issues. He is a Form 8 holder.
Mr Mughal submitted that the defendant committed these serious offences as he was desperate to raise money for his family as his mother, who suffered from diabetes, was ill. And being a Form 8 holder, he is not allowed to work. His friends then introduced him to a person called Sajib, who would then promise him $500 to deliver dangerous drugs. He was given keys to the flat. He did not live there. It is under those circumstances that the defendant committed these two offences.
The defendant is very remorseful for what he had done and determined not to re-offend. The defendant himself actually wrote to me explaining why he had committed the offences. He expressed his deep remorse and he has made a solemn promise not to traffic dangerous drugs or to in any way break the law of Hong Kong. He apologised for bringing harm to the Hong Kong society, and he was particularly ashamed of what he had done because his mother arranged campaigns for a drug-free society, that is, anti-drug programme back in Bangladesh. The defendant emphasised that this was an isolated incident that is due to his desperate try to raise money for the mother.
Mr Mughal submitted that the defendant acted as a courier, a foot soldier and peddler. He was not the mastermind or the main organiser in these offences. As the defendant pleaded guilty prior to trial, Mr Mughal asked me to give the defendant a discount of 25 percent. Mr Mughal accepted that, as a Form 8 holder, an enhancement of at least 6 months is warranted in the defendant’s case.
Now, my consideration of the sentence. Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a serious offence. A person convicted of this offence on indictment is liable to a fine of HK$5 million and life imprisonment.
In the circumstances of the present case, where both offences were committed on the same day and the facts were closely related, in that the dangerous drug, the cocaine, in the 1st count was obviously connected with the dangerous drugs in the 2nd count, the proper approach is to have regard to the total dangerous drugs in Count 1 and Count 2 to come to an overall starting point. In other words, instead of calculating them separately, add all the drugs together. The authorities include HKSAR v Chow Yu Chi and Cheung Kwok Leung and also Wong To.
So for the trafficking of more than one kind of drugs, there are two sentencing approaches open to the sentencing judge. One is individual approach and the other is a combined approach. So before I say which approach I will use, let us look at the starting point for each drug.
Cocaine and heroin can be looked at together. Adding the cocaine and heroin involved here is 10,396 grammes. So according to the authority for the trafficking of heroin and cocaine, that is the case of Abdallah, the quantity falls in the bracket of 4 to 15 kilogrammes. The starting point is one of 26 to 30 years.
The ‘Ice’ and the methamphetamine involved is 1,380.36 grammes. So according to the case of Tam Yi Chun and Abdallah, the quantity falls into the bracket of 1,200 to 4,000 grammes. The starting point is one between 23 to 26 years.
In the present case, I am of the view that a combined approach is more appropriate. I have asked counsel for size to provide me with their calculation on the three tests, that is, conversion test, ratio test, and absurdity test.
According to the calculation made by prosecuting counsel, whether the conversion was done using ‘Ice’ as base or using heroin or cocaine as base, the end result was the same: 28 years and 9.9 months’ imprisonment. And defence counsel adopted ‘Ice’ as the base and also came up with 28 years and 9.9 months. This is for conversion, and calculation using the ratio test and absurdity test also yield the same result.
Now, I now have to consider the role played by the defendant to decide the appropriate starting point. On the evidence before this Court, and in the absence of any evidence pointing to the defendant actually living at the premises in question, I am prepared to accept that he was given the keys to the premises, that he does not live there. I accept that his role was that of a courier.
But apart from being a courier, the fact that cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine were all found on the bed inside this room of Flat B, with packing materials such as the electronic scales and the resealable plastic bags, and the fact that DNA of the defendant was found on one of the two scales, the defendant has also acted as a packer of the dangerous drugs. So having considered his involvement, the amount of the drugs involved, and the fact that there were several types of drugs involved as well, I am of the view that a starting point of 29½ years is appropriate.
As conceded by defence counsel, the fact that the defendant was a Form 8 holder is an aggravating factor. I will enhance the starting point by 6 months to reach a starting point of 30 years.
The defendant did not plead guilty at the earliest available opportunity. He only pleaded guilty after the case was committed to the High Court but before the actual trial took place. I am of the view that a discount of 25 percent is appropriate. That is following the case of Ngo Van Nam. There are no other reasons for further reduce the sentence. Now, according to my calculation, the resultant sentence is one of 22 years and 6 months. That is 30 years with a discount of 25 percent.
So for Count 1, the defendant is sentenced to 22 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Count 2, also 22 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, and both sentences to run concurrently.
That means altogether 22 years and 6 months.