COURT: The defendant, Wang Mansen, pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. On or about 3 June 2020, he unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 20.96 kilogrammes of a solid containing 17.3 kilogrammes of cocaine in Hong Kong.
The Summary of Facts was admitted by the defendant. He was convicted. He was committed for sentence today.
On 3 June 2020, a male went to collect an inbound air cargo consignment from the Netherlands at Hong Kong International Airport. The two pallets of goods were labelled “milk powder”. The pallets were examined and the packets of white powder were found in 42 of 864 cans of powdered milk. Narcotics tests conducted upon the discovery of the white powder confirmed they contained cocaine, a total of 20.96 kilogrammes of a solid containing 17.3 kilogrammes of cocaine.
The first male was authorised to collect the consignment on behalf of the consignee and he was to pass the consignment to the driver arranged after collection. A controlled delivery operation was arranged in which the first male voluntarily participated.
A second male about four hours later arrived to collect the consignment. He was confirmed to be a delivery driver acting according to the instructions of his logistics company and he was to deliver the two pallets to the designated consignee’s address according to the delivery receipts. He too agreed to participate in a controlled delivery operation. He drove the two pallets to the consignee’s address in Kwun Tong.
This second male called the consignee’s mobile phone number and spoke to a man in Cantonese. A man said no one was in Kwun Tong to take delivery and requested a change of delivery location to Yau Tong. There would be someone to collect the consignment at around 3 to 4 pm that day.
The second male received a call at about 2.30 pm, requesting to collect the consignment at 3 pm. At 2.50 pm, the pick-up location was changed again but the second male said that the pallets had already been unloaded in Yau Tong as requested. He told the man on the phone to come to Yau Tong to collect them there as arranged and that man agreed. The defendant was the man who arrived to collect the consignment.
The defendant signed the delivery receipts. He was then arrested. Under caution, he said he did not know the contents of the consignment. A friend surnamed Cheng had asked him to collect the consignment as he was busy and he was to wait for a telephone call with further instructions after collecting the consignment. He was not receiving any reward for helping his friend Cheng. He said he had no personal knowledge or details or contact for this friend. He initially denied all knowledge of the contents of the consignment.
The defendant did agree to participate in a controlled delivery operation to this man, Cheng. Many calls were made to Cheng but no one answered the phone. Attempts to contact him were unsuccessful and the controlled delivery operation failed.
Subsequently, the defendant’s phone was examined and there were WhatsApp conversations between the defendant and the mobile number allegedly used by his friend Cheng. There was a discussion about this job on 3 June. The defendant requested more money because he was risking his life and facing serious consequences. He was reminded not to say anything if anything happened and was told that there was nothing to connect the job to the defendant as his name was not on any item or document. Cheng told him that he would pay the defendant his salary after the job. The defendant was told to pay attention and be careful.
The estimated street value of the cocaine seized was about $30,580,640. He now admits that he was knowingly in possession for the purposes of trafficking the dangerous drugs that he collected and signed for them.
Mitigation
The defendant is now 22 years old and has had no convictions that related to dangerous drugs. He has previous convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2018 and he was sent to a detention centre. I have heard full mitigation from Mr Yu on behalf of the defendant. He has elaborated on his family background. After the defendant was born, he was left in the care of his maternal grandparents in the Mainland whilst his parents came to Hong Kong to earn a living. However, his parents divorced when the defendant was only 2 years old and he has not had contact with his father since.
The defendant came to Hong Kong when he was 11 years old but was unable to acclimatise or adapt here to the different environment, culture, schooling and felt very isolated. He felt even more isolated because he did not have a good relationship with his mother’s boyfriend. He lost interest in school and started working at the age of 16 as a waiter. Prior to his arrest and the COVID pandemic, he was working as a decoration worker, earning $15,000 a month, and was self-sufficient. However, he lost his job and was living on savings for months prior to his arrest. He did not want to ask his mother for money and was in need of some income.
He met a man named Cheng at social gatherings who in the end offered him $10,000 to collect a parcel of drugs for him. He was assured by Cheng that he would not get in trouble because his name was not used on any document relating to the parcel. The defendant believed him and out of desperation agreed to do the job.
The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty. I have read letters from the defendant, his mother and his mother’s boyfriend. I have taken into account everything said on his behalf in mitigation. I note and it is relevant that he did agree to take part in a subsequent controlled delivery operation which, however, was unsuccessful.
Sentence
I have referred myself to HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph, CACC 93/2019, and the six-step approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. The defendant is a courier. His role was to collect the goods as directed from a delivery driver. He was to then deliver them to someone else somewhere else upon instruction. Therefore, his sentence is to be determined by the relevant tariffs and the quantity of cocaine.
I have referred myself to the authority of R v Lau Tak Ming where the guidelines for trafficking heroin is set out, and the Attorney General v Pedro Nel Rojas where the Court of Appeal held that the sentencing tariffs in Lau Tak Ming will apply equally to cases of trafficking in cocaine. According to guidelines, trafficking in between 4,000 and 15,000 grammes of cocaine would attract a starting point of between 26 and 30 years’ imprisonment. Trafficking in over 15,000 grammes or 15 kilogrammes would attract a starting point of over 30 years’ imprisonment and is at the discretion of the sentencing court.
Bearing in mind the quantity here is over 15 kilogrammes, I have taken into account the facts of the case, the defendant’s role and mitigation put forward to arrive at a starting point I find appropriate for 17.3 kilogrammes of cocaine. After careful consideration, I find a starting point of 31 years’ imprisonment appropriate.
It is part of the Summary of Facts that the cocaine came from Europe by air. Any international element proven from the facts normally is treated as an aggravating factor to enhance any starting point. There is no direct evidence this defendant knew he was collecting drugs that had arrived from overseas. Therefore, I do not intend to take this factor into account for the purposes of sentencing.
The defendant has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is of course entitled to a discount of one-third from that starting point. In this case, the defendant had after his arrest given assistance to the authorities when he agreed to participate in a controlled delivery operation. In some cases, that assistance can put an arrested person in danger of later repercussions from those that control or instruct him. That in itself should be recognised, encouraged and rewarded in the form of an additional discount.
Can I ask the defendant to please stand up? After careful consideration of the defendant’s plea, that co-operation or assistance just after his arrest as well as other mitigation I have heard that is relevant, I intend to reduce that starting point by just over 45 per cent. That is a discount of 14 years. That leaves a sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment.
The sixth step in the sentencing approach of Herry Jane Yusuph is to stand back and observe the overall sentence to ensure that it is fair, balanced and just in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, to ensure that it is not a crushing sentence.
Here, in approaching this principle, I have weighed it against a sentence of 17 years, the charge involved and the amount of drugs trafficked into Hong Kong and mitigation put forward. Despite it being a heavy sentence, I find the overall term of 17 years a fair and balanced sentence under the circumstances and facts.
Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment. Can I ask the defendant if he understands that sentence?
ACCUSED: Yes.