COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug before a Magistrate and was committed before me for sentence.
In sentencing, I have considered the whole of the circumstances, including the nature and facts of the case, the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, personal background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf. I have also had regard to the sentencing principle and approach as laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
The facts of the case may be summarized as follows.
On 9 June 2024, the defendant arrived in Hong Kong from Kenya via Doha. When Customs Officer asked him whether the suitcase which had been checked in belonged to him, he shook his head despite the luggage tag on it showed his name. He also refused to open the suitcase and officer had to prize it open. There was a carton box in the suitcase. Inside the box was a metal hollow cylinder. When officer drilled on the rim of the cylinder, some white powder was found concealed in it. The white powder was tested positive for Cocaine.
The defendant was arrested. Under caution he did not make any admission. He also refused to participate in a controlled delivery operation.
Later, officer cut open the said cylinder and the substance which is the subject matter of the case was found. It was 1.30 kilogrammes of a solid containing 1.07 kilogrammes of Cocaine.
Prior to coming to Hong Kong, the defendant on 5 June 2024 flew from Lisbon to Dubai and then to Nairobi on 6 June. On 9 June, he flew from Nairobi to Doha and then to Hong Kong. He had bought ticket to leave Hong Kong on 10 June, the day following his arrest for Nairobi via Doha. He had also bought ticket to leave Hong Kong on 15 June for Lisbon via Dubai. He had booked hotel in Hong Kong during the days he was to stay in Hong Kong during the said two periods of time.
In the mobile phone of the defendant, there were photographs showing a female carrying the said suitcase and the defendant took photos of the same suitcase.
I was told that the defendant is a Sao Tomeanse, an island nation of Africa. He is now 45 years old. He completed Primary 4 education and worked as a civil construction worker. He is married with five children, aged between 6 and 17 years, all are students. His wife is a housewife. He did not have any criminal conviction record in Hong Kong.
In mitigation, learned counsel of the defence, Mr Freddy Woon, stressed that the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is now remorseful. He also asked the court to take into account that the defendant has no criminal conviction record.
Mr Woon informed the court that the defendant had worked as a driver and then went to Lisbon to work as a construction worker.However, when the construction project completed, he in March 2024 became unemployed. He only managed to engage in some part-time jobs in a restaurant. He was the sole breadwinner of a family. Having been out of full-time employment for 3 months, he was in severe financial difficulties. In these circumstances, he came to know a man from Nigeria who recruited him to bring the suitcase containing cocaine from Kenya to Hong Kong. He had not yet received any reward.
Mr Woon also asked the court to accept that the defendant was only a courier and not organiser of the operation.
The case concerns Cocaine. Having regard to the observation of the Court of Final Appeal in Seabrook v HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 184, I am of the view that the tariff set out in the recent case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 should be applied.
In all the circumstances of the case, I see no reason to depart from the tariff.
I accept the submission of Mr Woon that the defendant played the role of a courier and occupied a low position in the hierarchy.
However, this is a case where the international element should be taken into account.
Apart from this I do not see there is any further matter which amounts to an aggravating factor.
The narcotic content of the dangerous drug involved in this case was 1.07 kilogrammes of cocaine. The Court of Appeal remarked in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) that if the quantity of the narcotic was 500 and 1,500 grammes, a sentence of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment should be considered. Just taking into account quantity of the narcotic, I am of the view that a notional sentence after trial of 18 years and 3 months is appropriate.
For the international element, I find an enhancement of 21 months is called for.
In all the circumstances, I adopt 20 years as the ultimate notional sentence after trial.
The defendant pleaded guilty before a Magistrate and for this he is entitled to a one-third discount. I do not see there is any other matter which justifies any further discount.
In my judgement the sentence to be imposed is a fair and just in all the circumstances of the case and of the defendant.
For the reasons I have said, I sentence you to an immediate imprisonment term of 13 years and 4 months.