COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug. The particulars of offence avers that between 14 and 21 March 2022, the defendant conspired with one “Ah Ming” to unlawfully traffic in 19.191 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug commonly known as ‘Ice’.
He has admitted the Summary of Facts prepared by the prosecution. In gist, on 21 March 2022, the police entered the flat of which he and his girlfriend were living and found the ‘Ice’ in the charge. Upon arrest for trafficking in a dangerous drug and under caution, he stated that he could not find a job because of the pandemic. So he agreed to help others to deliver dangerous drugs to earn a bit for living expenses.
In subsequent video-recorded interviews taken by the police, he provided the following details. He met a male nicknamed Ah Ming in a game centre in Mong Kok more than half a year before the interviews. Ah Ming asked him to help transport dangerous drugs, but the defendant did not see the need to help Ah Ming.
In February 2022, Ah Ming asked the defendant to help pick up some goods for a reward. This time, the defendant wanted to earn some money as it was difficult to find a job because of the pandemic, and he wanted to repay his mother for paying for his girlfriend’s operation. But the defendant declined after all in the end.
About a week before the offence, Ah Ming asked the defendant to help pick up some goods again. As the defendant was in need of money, he agreed. The day before the offence, the defendant went to Yuen Long to pick up some goods for Ah Ming, guessing they were dangerous drugs.
Afterwards, he picked up his girlfriend and both returned to the flat with the goods. The defendant counted the goods as per Ah Ming’s request, and he suspected they were the dangerous drug, ‘Ice’. The defendant understood from Ah Ming that he would be required to take the dangerous drugs to someone else later. The defendant was promised a remuneration of $20,000 by Ah Ming, but he has yet to receive the sum.
The estimated street value of the ‘Ice’ in the case is $10.4 million.
Mr Wong, counsel for the defendant, submitted the following in mitigation. The defendant is 23 years old and was 20 years and 4 months old at the time of offence. He has no previous criminal convictions.
Before he was arrested for the present case, he has completed the Diploma Yi Jin programme at the Hong Kong College of Technology, which is equivalent to Form 6. Upon remand in Stanley Prison, he has been enrolled in the post-secondary programme of the Hong Kong Metropolitan University, and he intends to continue with his studies while serving the sentence in this case.
Mr Wong accepts that the sentence will not be anything other than a long-term imprisonment, citing HKSAR v Chu Ho Wa and Another [2022] 1 HKLRD 359, and HKSAR v Wong Chun Shing transliteration [2022] HKCFI 3179. However, he urges the court to give a discount, even for a week, in light of the defendant’s relative youth, citing SJ v Tang King Wa [2023] 2 HKLRD 1440, so that the defendant can return to and repay the society and his parents as soon as possible.
Mr Wong submits that this was a one-off, out-of-character incident in which the defendant has succumbed to Ah Ming’s devilish invitation due to financial reasons. He was instructed that Ah Ming was a person in his 40s.
Mr Wong has also submitted letters written by the defendant, his parents, his chaplain, and the school social worker of the defendant’s secondary school. I have read and considered them all. I would mention that based on the letters, the defendant appears to me to have genuinely reflected on his erroneous values and determined to become a useful person and to take care of his parents when released, and that his parents are fully committed to support and guide the defendant.
I now consider the six steps as stipulated in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150.
According to the case HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, the sentencing tariffs for trafficking in 600 grammes and over of ‘Ice’ should follow those as were prescribed in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 for those quantities of heroin.
According to Abdallah, the starting point for sentence for trafficking in 4 kilogrammes to 15 kilogrammes of heroin is between 26 and 30 years’ imprisonment, whereas that for trafficking in over 15 kilogrammes of heroin is at the sentencer’s discretion. There is 19.191 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’ in the present case and therefore the starting point is at my discretion.
The defendant helped Ah Ming to pick up and store the ‘Ice’. He also understood that he would be required to deliver the ‘Ice’ to someone else later. His role was both a courier and a storekeeper. The defendant had a clear record before this offence. He committed the offence because he could not secure a job and he wanted to repay his mother. He was only 20 years and 4 months old, not extreme youth or a teenager, but still relatively young.
However, when he was first approached by Ah Ming, the defendant already knew that Ah Ming was dealing with dangerous drugs. On his own admission, when he finally succumbed to Ah Ming’s offer, he guessed that he would be dealing with dangerous drugs.
Therefore, this is not a case where the defendant was deceived by Ah Ming and only realised he was dealing with dangerous drugs when he saw them and thereafter could not withdraw from the matter.
I have considered the cases cited by Mr Wong and his submissions and have considered all the circumstances, I adopt 30 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for sentence.
There is no other factors that should increase or reduce the starting point save for the defendant’s plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity. He is entitled to a full one-third discount, thus bringing down the sentence to 20 years’ imprisonment.
The defendant is 23 years old. He has been remanded for just short of 3 years already. Should he perform satisfactorily whilst in prison, he will be entitled to remission for good behaviour and could be released in about 10 years’ time.
His parents will be in their 60s by that time. Having considered all these and balancing the seriousness of the crime, I regard the sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment to be a fair, just and balanced sentence in this case. You have committed a serious crime and you are sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.