COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty on 22 August 2024 to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today, he confirms his plea and admission of the Summary of Facts.
The particulars of the offence are as follows. The defendant on 15 June 2022, outside Yip Cheung Centre, 10 Fung Yip Street, Chai Wan in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 5,228.3 grammes of a solid containing 4,324.9 grammes of cocaine.
The facts are straight-forward. Customs Officers were carrying out an anti-narcotics operation and on 15 June 2022, at about 4 pm, intercepted the defendant outside the address of the offence. He was carrying a backpack. In it during a search, officers found eight transparent bags containing all the drugs of this offence.
Under caution, the defendant told the Customs Officers that he had picked up the drugs from Flat A, 5th Floor of that very building. He had a key for the premises. He was escorted to the premises and in this unfurnished unit, Customs Officers found paraphernalia used for and evidence of packaging dangerous drugs.
Defendant admits he was in possession of the cocaine for the purposes of unlawful trafficking and that the estimated street value of that amount at that time was $4,370,858.
Mitigation
Defendant is now 29 years old and at the time of the offence, he was single and living with his parents. He has one previous conviction. In October 2014, he was sentenced to 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment by the District Court for trafficking in dangerous drugs. I take into account that was over 10 years ago.
Mr Cheung has said all he can possibly say on behalf of the defendant in mitigation. His best mitigation is his plea of guilty.
I have been told that at the time of his arrest, he was working as a casual delivery worker earning about $8,000 each month. He is not in good health. He has kidney function issues. One of his kidneys is impaired and only has a 20 per cent function. Both his parents are in their 60s and not in great health. Both are still working full time.
The defendant got into debt gambling and from trying to start his own business. He owed over $500,000 and was offered quick and easy money for delivering drugs. For this delivery that was foiled by Customs Officers, he would have received a reward of $10,000.
In mitigation, I have received a doctor’s letter confirming his kidney impairment, doctor’s confirmation of his own parents’ health issues, as well as letters from the defendant, his father and mother all ask for leniency.
Sentencing
I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the most recent authority, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.
In the approach to sentencing, a number of steps have been identified which the court should take, such as assessing the gravity of the offence and applicable guideline; identifying the defendant’s role; where within the guideline the defendant should lie; any aggravating factors; any mitigating factors; and lastly, passing a sentence which is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.
The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guideline according to the drug seized.
The sentencing guidelines for cocaine is now found in the most recent authority of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234. The starting point for trafficking in cocaine between 1,500 to 5,000 grammes is 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically speaking, trafficking in 4,324.9 grammes of cocaine will attract a starting point of 23 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
I have considered the evidence and there is no real evidence to suggest the defendant was anything more than a storekeeper and/or courier. I find the mathematical starting point of 23 years’ imprisonment appropriate in this case.
The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors. I see no such factors in this case.
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount. I will take the starting point of 23 years’ imprisonment and reduce it by one-third. The defendant is sentenced to 15 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
With the last step of the six steps in mind, I consider this sentence, although substantial, to be fair and just, and balanced in the light of the circumstances of the offence as well as the defendant.
Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced, I repeat, to a total of 15 years and 4 months’ imprisonment for this offence.
