The facts are that on 1 June 2010 a container arrived from Paraguay. The shipper of that container named on the Bill of Lading was the 2nd defendant, Zoz Andreoli Osmar. The container’s contents were listed as sawn sandstone.
On 7 June 2010 the 2nd accused together with two other South American males and a Chinese male arrived at the offices of the shipping agent to arrange for transportation of the container on 9 June 2010.
The arrangement was for the container to be driven to Unit 606 of the Hutchison Logistics Centre, at Container Port Road, South Kwai Chung. The original Bill of Lading, amongst other documents, had the 2nd accused’s name on it.
The 2nd accused also produced his passport which was copied and stamped. He also handed over the company stamp which he had used to stamp the collection authorisation form.
On 9 June the container was collected and delivered to Hutchison Logistics Centre. The container seals were then opened and removed from the container with its cargo of nine boxes of bricks.
On the afternoon of 9 June police officers then observed the 1st defendant, Lui Shing-chu, arrive at the logistics centre, Room 606. At 2.30 a goods vehicle arrived and the driver and his assistant alighted. Six cartons were loaded on the vehicle and the 1st accused joined the driver in the vehicle and instructed them to go to Choi Hung Estate.
When the vehicle arrived at the destination the 1st accused and his younger brother who arrived with a trolley then unloaded the carton boxes onto the trolley. Both men were subsequently intercepted and the cartons contained the dangerous drugs as claimed in the indictment.
The 1st accused upon arrest and caution admitted that he only took these 70 pieces of cocaine to his home for storing temporarily.
The 2nd defendant was intercepted at Hong Kong International Airport on 14 June prior to his trying to leave on a flight to Paris.
These dangerous drugs were subsequently examined and estimated to be valued at over HK$67 million.
Both defendants were subsequently charged with the present offence. Both defendants pleaded guilty and they subsequently gave evidence in the trial of the 3rd accused in this case.
Let me say from the start that I do accept that these two defendants were not the masterminds of this syndicate, though their roles were very important ones.
Whilst the court has sympathy that at a very young age they will go to prison for a long time. Nevertheless, the court has to be severe in sentencing, bearing in mind the tragic consequences these drugs will have on the community and the tragic consequences are well way beyond one’s imagination.
The public has a right to demand and know that the young people of the community are protected from the evil consequences of these drugs and the only way the courts can ensure this is to make the sentences severe so it becomes less attractive for people like these two young men to willingly help in this enterprise.
Recently Line J had sentenced in another case of trafficking in cocaine of over 200 kilogrammes. In that case there was no international element and it was just for storing of the cocaine. The starting point used was 33 years. In this case there is an added international element and also the element sophistication in the operation.
The courts have recognised that in quantities of such a large nature it is entirely in the discretion of the trial judge as to what sentence to impose.
I have considered the cases which have been advanced before me and the nature of this present offence and I consider that an appropriate starting point would be one of 32 years. Added to that are, as I have said, the aggravating feature of the international element and the sophistication of the operation. I will increase it by 2 years to 34 years.
As I have said, both defendants had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and both have given evidence in the trial of the 3rd accused.
In the case of the 1st defendant at the trial he did give his evidence as expected but the defence was able to produce a letter which he had written exonerating the 3rd defendant.
The explanation of the 1st defendant was that he was made to write that letter by the 3rd defendant and he agreed to copy it at a time when their relationship was still on a good footing. He had forgotten about that letter when he offered himself as a prosecution witness and therefore he is saying, in effect, that he did not set out to mislead the prosecution or the court.
Mr Hotten is correct in saying that we do not know how far that letter may have been considered by the jury as affecting the credibility of the 1st defendant. There may have been other factors which were in the minds of the jury when they acquitted the 3rd defendant.
Having considered that I am prepared to give him credit for giving evidence and his assistance to the police on the other matter which is evidenced by a letter written by the police about an incident of assault which had happened in prison. It was a matter which did not directly affect the defendant but he was willing to inform the police and help them. It was a letter that thanked him for his assistance. I do give him credit for that and give him credit for giving evidence.
At the end of the day I have decided to give him a little more than 50 per cent discount and so I sentence him to 15 years’ imprisonment.
In relation to the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is a young man like the 1st defendant, they are very close in age, about 21 now. He has also pleaded guilty at the first instance.
He did give evidence at the trial, he came up to proof, although his knowledge was minimal as he basically was recruited in Paraguay and came to Hong Kong as the named shipper so he was unable to give much helpful evidence in relation to the case against the 3rd accused. Nevertheless, he gave evidence and also considering everything that I have heard I think he is entitled to the same discount as the 1st defendant.
I do appreciate that he will be far away from his family and relatives and he is worried about the circumstances of his family back home but that cannot go in any way to mitigate the sentence.
A message has to be sent to other young men in South America that in Hong Kong they can expect, should they be tempted to be involved in trafficking in dangerous drugs, to meet with heavy sentences and it is the only form of deterrent that is of any use.
Similarly I will give the same discount to the 2nd defendant and he is sentenced to 15 years’ in prison.