COURT: The defendants pleaded guilty before a Magistrate for one count of manufacturing a dangerous drug and one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs. They are committed before me for sentence.
It is stated in the particulars of the respective charges that the defendants manufactured and trafficked in dangerous drugs together with Hassan Ali and Ali Hassan.
On the 17 January 2024, the defendants were seen together with others including Hassan Ali and Ali Hassan, carrying objects in and out, a studio flat at small hours, in Sha Ha Path, Sha Ha Village, Sai Kung. The studio flat was on record booked by Hassan Ali via Airbnb for one day. The activities of the defendants and others were noticed by the flat manager via CCTV. Feeling suspicious, the manager reported to the police. The police arrived at the scene and eventually arrested the defendants and Ali Hassan in the vicinity.
Upon search of the flat, a total of 1,378.31 grammes were found of a solid containing 163.92 grammes of cocaine and 4,690 grammes of a liquid containing 4.95 grammes of cocaine were found.
The estimated street value of the drug seized is was 1.37 million (in powder form) and 1.85 million (in crack form).
Chemicals including hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, ammonia, petrol and charcoal were also found in the flat. Paraphernalia including plastic gloves, buckets, metal pipe, spoons, pliers, glass bottles and plastic bags were also found. The chemicals and paraphernalia found were commonly used for the process of extraction to separate cocaine from the carrier materials.
The 1st defendant is 31 years old. He was born in France and received an education there up to a Master’s degree in business and finance. He was married and had a 10-year-old son with his ex-wife. He came to Hong Kong in January 2018 and had worked as a hairstylist located in a high-end hotel. He later ran his own salon, but it was closed down in 2023.
According to Mr Yuen, counsel for the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant has been praised by the South China Morning Post and Alpha Men magazine as the best hairstylist in Hong Kong. He once earned $80,000 to $120,000 a month with commissions, and contributed $15,000 and $10,000 to his son and father, respectively.
The 1st defendant has a clear record in the court. In mitigation, Mr Yuen submitted that the 1st defendant did not play any significant role in the crimes, according to the prosecution’s Summary of Facts. Besides, the studio flat was rented for one day only, and it was clearly a one-off manufacturing act as opposed to a continuous workshop. Mr Yuen also urged this court to order that the sentences of the two charges be run concurrently.
The 2nd defendant is 50 years old. He is a Colombian national who received tertiary education at a Colombian institution studying computer programming. He has a clear record in Hong Kong. He married three times, and from those marriages, he has altogether five children who are aged 6, 11, 14, 25 and 27. He is still responsible for maintaining the three youngest children.
The 2nd defendant entered Hong Kong on 13 January 2024, five days before his arrest. He intended to leave Hong Kong on the night of the day of his arrest, and he produced a booking record of his flights to verify the same.
According to Mr Boyton, counsel for the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant runs a clothing business in Brazil, having his own brand. He was earning US$800 per month. His trip to Hong Kong this time was for the purpose of seeking business opportunities as there was tax-free importation of clothes, particularly for new brands. Unfortunately, he had fallen into the wrong crowd. A number of Africans he met in Hong Kong got him involved in the present offences.
In mitigation, Mr Boyton submitted that during the period of his remand, the 2nd defendant has been busy attending Bible studies and attending a course organised by the Chinese University of Hong Kong on introduction to the laws of Hong Kong. The 2nd defendant has written a letter to the court expressing that he is now very remorseful and he apologised to the Hong Kong government and society for his misdeed. He thanked Father Fernando and Father John for their help, and he spent his time in prison encouraging others to avoid drugs and alcohol.
Mr Boyton submitted that the 2nd defendant was always ready and willing to give evidence against other defendants, but it turned out that Hassan Ali had absconded. Mr Boyton acknowledged that the sentence for the manufacturing charge should be higher than that of the trafficking charge, but he urged this court not to impose a much higher sentence in view of the scale of the present operation. He also asked that the sentences of the two charges to run concurrently.
In sentencing the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, this court should follow the six-steps approach set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and follow the guidelines set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang No. 3 [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.
Applying the tariff under Huang Ruifang, as submitted by both counsel, the appropriate starting point for trafficking in the quantity of cocaine in the present case should be 11 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
Regarding the role of the defendants, as they were involved in manufacturing, they were not mere couriers or shopkeepers. I would enhance the starting point for 4 months’ imprisonment on this factor. But in any case, this factor will be reflected under the manufacturing charge, which is the more serious charge in this matter. I am mindful of not doubling the prejudice to the defendants because of their roles.
Apart from the defendants’ roles, I do not see any other aggravating factors. There is also no valid mitigating factor, apart from the defendants’ guilty plea.
To consider the proper sentence of the manufacturing charge, this court should assess the scale of the manufacturing operation, with reference to the overall circumstances, including whether it was a one-off act or continuous exercise. In the present case, considering the quantity of cocaine and the chemicals and paraphernalia found inside the flat, the manufacturing operation is not of too small a scale. But I accept that it was a one-off act, as the flat was only rented for one day.
In the circumstances, for Charge 1, I adopt a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment and reduced to 8 years for the defendants’ guilty plea. For Charge 2, I adopt a starting point of 11 years and 6 months’ imprisonment and reduced to 7 years and 8 months for the defendants’ guilty plea. I order that the sentence for the two charges are to run wholly concurrently.
