On the material day, the defendant was apprehended by police officers after he delivered a packet containing 0.81 of a kilogramme of cocaine outside one hotel in Shatin. Under caution, the defendant claimed that this was his first-time delivery and that he would earn a few hundred US dollars for this assignment.
A search of his hotel yielded nothing except some cash. However, the defendant then volunteered information to the police. The information that he supplied led to the seizure of a staggering 127.59 kilogrammes of cocaine which was stored in another building in the Tsim Sha Tsui area. The total retail value of all the seizure on that particular day was estimated to be in excess of HK$171 million.
The defendant is divorced with three sons. His family and parents reside in Colombia. The defendant has been in the China trade business since 2003.
The amount of cocaine seized is huge, well in excess of guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal. The guideline for trafficking in 15 kilogrammes of cocaine is one of 30 years’ imprisonment. Here it is 128 kilogrammes. In The Queen v Ng Muk Kam, CACC 685/1993, the defendant in that case, Mr Ng, who trafficked in 306 kilogrammes of heroin, on appeal, had his sentence reduced from life imprisonment to one of 35 years. The street value in Ng’s case amounted to HK$146 million. The Court of Appeal had said, in that case:
“It represents many lifetimes of honest earnings and many more lifetimes of misery and despair for addicts and their families. While we are satisfied that the sentence of life imprisonment was not a proper one, we are also satisfied that the offence called for a very substantial sentence.”
I believe the same can apply to this case. I accept, similar to Ng Muk Kam, that the defendant in this case was not shown to be either the mastermind or the chief financier. He was, however, clearly involved in a major way in the handling of this very large quantity of dangerous drug.
Given the amount of cocaine involved, I am of the view that the appropriate starting point in this case is one of 32 years’ imprisonment.
It was submitted on the defendant’s behalf that further discount should be accorded to him for his information which led to a significant seizure in this case. The prosecution accept that. The prosecution accept that, but for his information, there is a possibility that the police may not have uncovered the drugs in question. In light of his co‑operation, a further 7 per cent discount will be given. For this particular case, the defendant, therefore, is given a 40 per cent discount.
In conclusion, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 19 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.