COURT: The defendant, Chen Jingfeng, pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134, before me, and I found him guilty of the offence after he admitted to the facts of this case.
The admitted facts are actually quite straightforward. An incoming parcel from the Netherlands was intercepted for inspection at the airport by Customs officers. The recipient was Chen Jingfeng, that is, the defendant, with an address in Chai Wan. And inside the parcel, the officers found MDMA.
And then on 3 October 2019, a Customs officer, posed as a postman to make delivery at the address provided on the parcel. The defendant answered the door. After confirming his name, the defendant was asked whether there was a parcel from Netherlands to be collected and the defendant said, “Yes.” And after checking the defendant’s identity and confirming with the defendant the address shown on the parcel, the defendant provided the postal serial number which was stored in his mobile phone. After that, the parcel was handed to the defendant after receipt, and then the officer revealed his identity and arrested defendant for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs.
Examination conducted subsequently showed that there was 5,007 tablets containing 1,017 grammes of MDMA.
The defendant admitted he knew the parcel contained dangerous drugs and he possessed the dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
Now, the background and mitigation. According to the antecedents statement, the defendant was born in 1998, so he is now 24 years of age. He claimed to have worked as a chef, earning $14,000 a month, but he was unemployed at the time of the arrest. He has a criminal record of attempted robbery in 2018 and was sentenced to a rehabilitation centre.
In mitigation, Ms Anita Ma submitted, in line with what the defendant himself had said in his letter to the court, that his natural father deserted the family since he was born. And his mother had since remarried and when he was young, he was taken care of by his paternal grandparents and uncle in the Mainland. And he only joined his mother in Hong Kong when he was 11 years old, and he then lived with his mother and step-father. But the relationship between his mother and the step-father soured while he was incarcerated and now they are divorced.
The defendant found it hard to fit into the education system after he arrived in Hong Kong and he lost interest in his studies after completing Form 1. He took up various jobs at the age of 15 and later became an assistant to the chef in a Chinese restaurant.
As to the criminal conviction, Ms Ma submitted that defendant and two other teenagers attempted to rob the iPhone of another person. He was 19 years and 5 months at the time and he was sent to a rehabilitation centre. After his discharge, defendant was gainfully employed in a Japanese restaurant until he was dismissed due to the drop in business.
As for the reasons for committing the present offence, Ms Ma submitted that the defendant’s paternal uncle, who had always been a father figure to the defendant, had a baby daughter who suffer from premature heart disease. The defendant felt obliged to help out, but he did not have the money as he was out of job.
When his friend ‘Ah Ching’ learned that he was in need of money, Ah Ching asked him to collect a parcel which would be delivered to his home for a reward of $3,000. The defendant agreed to do so and gave his residential address to Ah Ching for the parcel delivery. The defendant acted foolishly without thinking of the consequences and he is now truly remorseful.
Ms Ma referred to the case of Hii Siew Cheng and submitted that the tariff for the MDMA in question is from 14 years upwards. Though the parcel was sent from the Netherlands, Ms Ma relied on the case of HKSAR v Ali Qasim and the case of HKSAR v SK Wasim and submitted that on the facts of the Admitted Facts, it is not apparent that the defendant knew the parcel was sent from overseas as the evidence only show that when the parcel was delivered by the Custom officer posing as a postman, the defendant answered “Yes” when he was asked whether he was to collect a parcel from the Netherlands.
Ms Ma also emphasised the fact that the defendant indicated his wish to plead guilty prior to the CMH and submitted that the defendant should be given a 25 percent discount, citing the case of Ngo Van Nam.
As mentioned, the defendant wrote to this Court, expressing his deep regret for having committed the offence. The defendant’s mother and friend also wrote to mitigate on his behalf. So did the Pastor, surnamed Lam, who had met the defendant while visiting inmates.
Now, my consideration for the sentence. Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence. A person convicted of this offence upon indictment is liable to be imprisoned for life and fined $5,000,000. In the case of Hii Siew Cheng, the Court of Appeal set down guidelines for the trafficking of MDMA. Trafficking over 1 kilogrammes of MDMA, the starting point is upwards from 14 years. The quantity involved is just over 1 kilogramme and a starting point of 14 years is appropriate.
Having considered the submission by Ms Ma and the authorities she relied on, I accept that it is not apparent that when the defendant agreed to receive the parcel that he already knew the parcel was to be sent from overseas, so I will not enhance the sentence on the basis of international element. Although the defendant had one previous conviction, I also will not enhance the sentence on that basis.
The defendant did not plead guilty at the committal stage, but he did indicate to this Court his intention to plead guilty prior to the case management hearing. I will give him a 25 percent discount.
So for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the defendant is sentenced to 10 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.