Under caution he admitted to be knowingly involved in the import of “Ice”. He did so for a promised reward of $1,600 from someone called Ko Lo. The latter’s instruction was for the defendant to take the drug home to wait for its collection.
Upon request, the defendant agreed to take part in a controlled delivery. It was, however, D2 in this case and not Ko Lo who came to pick up the drug. D2 was caught, charged and put on trial, but was acquitted at half time as I directed. Having heard one of the C&E officers who did not testify at the voir dire, I had reversed my earlier decision and excluded D2’s written and verbal admissions, the only evidence against him on knowledge.
The defendant is aged 35, divorced, with one son and was, at the time of the offence, unemployed. He has no previous conviction. In mitigation, counsel mentioned the defendant’s financial pressure but focused on his guilty plea and the assistance that he had provided to the authorities.
The defendant’s evidence in D2’s trial was of real but limited direct probative value. It confirmed D2’s acquaintance with Ko Lo but the defendant was unable to say that on this occasion D2 knew it was drugs that he was collecting.
Be that as it may, the prosecution did decide to call him. Going back to the time of the offence he also took part in the controlled delivery without which D2 would not have been apprehended. That being the case, I will credit him with an overall discount of 50 per cent, which covers his guilty plea. That I believe is in line with the authorities.
Given the quantity of the drug involved and the fact that this is a cross-border case, the correct starting point for the offence is 11 years. I will reduce it by half to 5½ years.
That is the sentence I pass on the defendant.