COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug before a magistrate on 31 March this year and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
According to the Summary of Facts to which he agreed at the time of his guilty plea, he was intercepted by the police at about 5.40 pm on 8 January 2024 as he came out of Room 2401 of Chung Shue House, Lei Muk Shue (2) Estate in Tsuen Wan. The police entered the flat with the use of the keys seized on his person.
On a table in the living room, the police found a total of three plastic bags containing all the drug particularised in the charge, that is, 268.3 grammes of a mixture containing a total of 205.85 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. The police also found burnt metal foil and a paper tube, both containing traces of heroin, and two digital scales, trays, lighter, two packets of resealable plastic bags and a roll of metal foils.
The estimated street value of the seized drug was about HK$200,420.
Enquiries revealed that the flat was rented in the defendant’s name with the lease began in 2021.
Upon his arrest, the defendant stated under caution at the scene that he intended to sell the drug, and he claimed that some of the heroin was for his self-consumption.
In the subsequent video-recorded interview, he said he was looking for a job. His acquaintance “Ah Ming” instructed him to pick up three bags of heroin in a public toilet in San Po Kong some four days ago, to package them into 0.24-gramme bags, and then to deliver them to others for a reward of $500 for each delivery. The defendant said he would do so by sealing the plastic bags by heat with the lighter but he has not packaged the drug yet, and he had consumed a little bit of the drug himself.
The defendant now admits that he was in possession of all the heroin seized in his flat for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
The defendant is a Vietnamese male who is now 61 years of age. He was born in Vietnam. I was informed by defence counsel Mr Nelson Lam that he came to Hong Kong in year 1988. He has received education up to Secondary 1 level. He used to work as a construction worker and was unemployed at the time of his arrest. He has no family members in Hong Kong and relied on CSSA, the government allowance.
He has a total of 34 items of criminal convictions, mainly for offences relating to dutiable goods. Amongst the criminal convictions, he has a total of six convictions for the offence of possession of dangerous drug. His last conviction was on 25 March 2022 for the offence of possession of dangerous drug for which he was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment.
In mitigation, counsel Mr Lam informed me that the defendant had a colon cancer operation in 2017, and he is still now suffering from pain. Counsel said he is a Hong Kong resident, and his role in this particular case was simply one of a courier.
In respect of his criminal record, counsel urged this court not to consider his possession of dangerous drug convictions as aggravating features because they are different in nature. Counsel also pointed out that his last conviction was a few years before his arrest for the present case.
In sentencing the defendant, I bear in mind the approach set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. According to the revised guidelines in the recent case of HKSAR vHuang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the starting point for trafficking in between 200 and 500 grammes of heroin is 12 to 16 years’ imprisonment after trial. So the arithmetic starting point for trafficking in 205.85 grammes of heroin would be around 12 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.
The arithmetic starting point is appropriate for persons at the lower bottom of the trafficking hierarchy such as storekeepers and couriers. In this case, I accept counsel’s submission that the role of the defendant was merely that of a courier. Taking into account his overall role and culpability, I consider that the appropriate starting point after trial should be 12 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.
The defendant pleaded guilty to the offence at an early stage. As such, he is entitled to the full one-third discount and the ultimate sentence that I would impose for this offence is 8 years’ imprisonment. This is the sentence to be served by the defendant, 8 years.