COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one count of conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug. He is committed to this court for sentence.
In the afternoon on 11 October 2022, the defendant was intercepted by police officers outside the premises of an industrial building. On the rucksack that he was carrying at the time, police officers found 751 grammes of cocaine. He was then led into the premises of that industrial building. Inside the premises, police officers found a further 35.77 kilogrammes of cocaine and various drug paraphernalia.
Under caution, the defendant told police officers that he was instructed by a friend in Malaysia to come to Hong Kong to pick up 50 blocks of cocaine. Afterwards he was then instructed to repackage and deliver those cocaine to various persons.
The street value was estimated between HK$42 to HK$81 million, depending on the forms of the substance ultimately sold to consumers.
The defendant is now 27, unemployed prior to his arrest, a Malaysian national. He has a clear record in Hong Kong.
Guidelines on sentencing 35.77 kilogrammes of cocaine would be an imprisonment term in excess of 30 years. Counsel for the defendant has asked for 31 years in view of the case in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
In this particular case, the defendant was not acting simply as a courier. He was entrusted by his friend in Malaysia, effectively to run a distribution centre in Hong Kong.
The monetary amount of the drug in question was exceedingly huge. Half a million Hong Kong dollars, not a small sum would be given for him as reward if the operation turned out to be successful.
So in short, this case also involves an international element. The drugs were smuggled across ocean and air into Hong Kong. In view of that 2 years would be added for the abovementioned aggravating factors. As such, the starting point for Count 1 would be one of 33 years’ imprisonment.
Given the circumstances of the defendant’s arrest and the overall case scenario, drugs found in Charge 2 could be considered to be part and parcel of the drugs in Charge 1.
Insofar as Count 3 is concerned, this additional count in my view is superfluous. It adds nothing to the culpability of the defendant and the overall criminality of the case. As such sentences on Count 2 and Count 3 would be the same as Count 1.
The only mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s plea. He is therefore entitled to the full one-third discount.
For the three offences the defendant stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.