CRIMINAL CASE NO. 376 OF 2011
COURT: 3rd accused and Tong Ka-ho, I have taken into account everything urged by your counsel.
The maximum sentence for conspiring to traffic in a dangerous drug is the same for trafficking in a dangerous drug. It is life imprisonment.
The dangerous drugs concerned consisted of 5,950 grammes of a solid containing 4,920 grammes of cocaine.
For trafficking in between 600 to 1,200 grammes of cocaine, the sentencing guidelines point to a sentence of 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment.
You believed that the dangerous drugs concerned was “Ice”. For trafficking in over 600 grammes of “Ice”, the sentencing guidelines point to a sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment and upwards. I will not deal with you more severely than I would if the dangerous drug concerned was “Ice”.
The quantity here was very large, being eight times more than 600 grammes. That cannot be ignored, although sentencing is, of course, not a mathematical exercise.
For heroin, to which cocaine is treated as an equivalent, the sentencing guidelines point to a sentence of 26 to 30 years for 4,000 to 15,000 grammes, but I do not forget that you believed these dangerous drugs to be “Ice”.
As to the roles of each of you two in this conspiracy, it is clear that the 3rd accused’s role is even larger than Tong Ka‑ho’s. That emerges both from the admissions made by the 3rd accused in his second video-recorded interview and from the testimony given by Tong Ka-ho against the 3rd accused. In convicting the 3rd accused, the jury must have felt sure that those admissions, that testimony, or both are true.
All of that is as between the 3rd accused and Tong Ka-ho. In fairness to the 3rd accused, it should be borne in mind that there must have been a person or persons who played a larger part than he did. Unfortunately, no such person has yet been brought to justice. Fortunately, the dangerous drugs in this case were intercepted by the police before they were taken abroad as the conspirators had planned.
For the 3rd accused there is no specific mitigation reducing the sentence from the appropriate starting point. For Tong Ka‑ho, his guilty plea and his co‑operation with the authorities, culminating in his giving evidence for the prosecution, earns him a substantial discount. I consider a discount of 50 per cent to be appropriate.
3rd accused, in all the circumstances, I consider that the appropriate sentence for you is 25 years’ imprisonment.
Tong Ka-ho, in my view, having taken into account everything, the appropriate starting point in your case is 23 years’ imprisonment. With a 50 per cent discount, that comes down to 11½ years’ imprisonment.
3rd accused, I sentence you to 25 years’ imprisonment.
Tong Ka-ho, I sentence you to 11½ years’ imprisonment.