The defendant, Tsoi Chun-man, pleaded guilty to a single charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted to the facts pertaining to the charge. He confirmed his plea of guilty and admission of Summary of Facts dated 15 December 2022 before me today. I convict him on his own plea and admission.
The defendant committed the offence on 23 September 2021. The charge concerns a total of 262.8 grammes of a solid containing 231.9 grammes of cocaine.
The Facts
It is a simple stop and search case. On 23 September 2021 at 2123 hours, a private vehicle with registration number WR4138 was parked outside Wai Kei BBQ, 677 Tai Kei Leng Road, New Territories, with defendant sitting in the driver’s seat.
A party of police officers approached the vehicle and with a view to intercept the defendant. Defendant suddenly alighted from the vehicle and fled. He was subsequently subdued by the police.
The police later conducted a search on the vehicle and found one opened black plastic bag containing 13 small sealed resealable transparent packets containing a total of 262.8 grammes of a solid containing 231.9 grammes of cocaine inside the central glove compartment.
The defendant was arrested and admitted under caution that he knew those were dangerous drugs and he wanted to sell it for raising his family and he asked for a chance.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, defendant further stated inter alia under caution that he was approached by someone on the Facebook for drug delivery and he was promised a monetary reward. He later found out that it was cocaine. He would receive $350 for delivering each 24 grammes of cocaine.
Criminal Record and Antecedents Statement
Defendant is now 39 years old and he is married with a 10-year-old son. Before the offence, the couple and the son were living with the defendant’s parents at a public housing estate in Chai Wan. His father now aged 68 is a retired person while his mother aged 63 works as a part-time cleaner.
The defendant is born and educated in Hong Kong, he had completed Form 5 secondary education. At the time of the offence, he worked as an Uber driver earning about $20,000 per month. He has a clear record.
Mitigation
In mitigation, Miss Cindy Lee, counsel for the defendant has said everything that can be said on behalf of the defendant. She told the court that the reason why the defendant committed the offence was because of the economic hardship suffered by the defendant since the social event in 2019 and the pandemic in early 2020.
Being the breadwinner of the family, his income as an Uber driver had dropped significantly from around $30,000 to $35,000 to around only $10,000 per month. During the same time, his father was admitted to the hospital for heart operation and his father-in-law in the mainland was also suffering from stomach cancer.
Defendant later borrowed money from some dubious peers to cover the family and the medical expenses. When he was unable to repay the debt, he was lured by them firstly to drive someone to deliver dangerous drugs and later to hire a car on his own to deliver drugs in order to earn quick money.
Miss Lee told the court that since the arrest, the defendant was deeply remorseful and he now realised that he was just being used by the drug traffickers to be a courier.
He had attended several courses organised by the Christian Society in order to rehabilitate himself and he also planned to work as a welder in the construction industry after serving his time in prison. A number of mitigation letters were also submitted to the court for my consideration.
Consideration
I have considered the nature of the dangerous drugs involved, the facts of the case, the background of the defendant and all the matters that can urged on the defendant’s behalf by Miss Lee.
The present charge concerns a total of 231.9 grammes of cocaine. The Court of Appeal has held in Attorney General v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342, that the sentencing guidelines for heroin are applicable to cocaine. Applying the tariff in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370, it falls within the band of sentence between 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment.
On the facts admitted by the defendant, I find the defendant played the role of a courier and storekeeper of the cocaine under complaint.
The tariff set down in Lau Tak Ming are applicable to the defendant’s case. Given the quantity of the cocaine and the role played by the defendant and on the facts before me, a notional sentence after trial of 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.
Trafficking in dangerous drugs is of course a very serious offence. The maximum sentence is a fine of HK$5 million and also imprisonment for life. Anyone who is convicted of this offence will be severely punished by the court. The court can never accept any economic reasons as a valid mitigation and the Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasised in the cases that family circumstances virtually plays no part in mitigation especially in serious offences such as the present.
Having read the mitigation letters submitted, I am sure the defendant is a filial son as well as a loving and caring father. But admittedly he should think twice before committing a serious offence like this without considering the consequences to the family.
The only valid mitigation in this case is therefore the defendant’s plea of guilty. The defendant is entitled to the full one-third discount for his timely plea in recognition of his remorse and in saving of the court’s time.
Sentence
For the reasons given after the reduction, I will sentence the defendant to 8 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.