COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, involving 16.582 kilogrammes of cocaine. At about 3.26 pm on 25 February 2022, whilst Customs officers were conducting an anti-narcotics operation, the officers saw the defendant on the pavement outside 251 Shau Kei Wan Road with a green recycle bag and a pink isothermal bag. The defendant was walking hastily towards Man Hong Apartments and aroused the officers’ suspicion.
The officers then intercepted the defendant and found a total of 20.08 kilogrammes of a solid in the form of blocks containing 16.582 kilogrammes of cocaine. Under caution, the defendant said that the items seized from him were dangerous drugs. He was waiting for orders to deliver them to others.
The estimated street value of the seized cocaine was $22,047,840.
The Defendant’s Background and Mitigation
The defendant is now 27 years old, single, and had been educated up to Form 2. He had been working as a casual delivery worker, earning around $10,000 a month on average.
The defendant’s father is 67 years old and retired, and at the date of the offence the family was operating under a suspicion that the father’s previous colon cancer condition may be relapsing. The defendant has no contact with his mother who had divorced his father around 9 to 10 years ago. The defendant also has a younger brother who is 16 years old.
I have been informed that the defendant committed the offence because the defendant was eager to earn more money so that his father can have better treatment. The defendant searched the internet for ways to earn extra income, and came across an advertisement promising high payment for a single delivery job. Whilst the defendant knew that it must have been for delivery of illegal items, the defendant did not realise it was dangerous drugs or in this amount until he went to pick up the goods.
I have read the letters written by the defendant himself, his father and his girlfriend. The letters all spoke to the defendant being a hardworking, responsible person who had taken up the role as the main breadwinner of the family, and who has taken it upon himself to work tirelessly to earn money to meet his father's medical bills and support the growth of his younger brother. I accept that the defendant is truly remorseful for his conduct, and that he is taking positive steps to better equip himself for reintegration into society after serving his prison term. However, it is sadly inevitable that the defendant will not be able to physically take care of his father for a very long time as a result of the risk that he took in accepting a delivery job for a very significant amount of drugs.
The defendant has no previous criminal record.
Sentencing Considerations
The sentencing approach in trafficking cases is set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150. I therefore follow the six-step sentencing approach set out in Yusuph.
The sentencing tariffs for trafficking in cocaine 600 grammes or above are provided for in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437. For quantities of 4 kilogrammes to 15 kilogrammes, the sentencing band is 26 to 30 years’ imprisonment. And for quantities above 15 kilogrammes, the sentence is at the sentencer’s discretion.
On the evidence, there is nothing to suggest that the defendant had any further role beyond the culpability of an ordinary courier. I therefore assess his culpability on that basis. Given that the amount of drugs seized in the present case is relatively near to 15 kilogrammes, and that the defendant's culpability is at the lowest end of the scale, I will adopt a starting point of 30 years’ imprisonment.
I have borne in mind the observations of the Court of Appeal in both HKSAR v Abdallah at paragraph 32 and Yusuph at paragraph 44, where the Court of Appeal stressed the seriousness of drug trafficking and the problems that it brings to families and communities. Although I accept that the defendant is genuinely remorseful and that his primary motivation for taking the risk as he did was to earn more money to meet his father's medical bills, personal circumstances in cases of this nature do not constitute mitigating factors and cannot provide the defendant with any further sentencing discount.
The only mitigating factor in this case is the defendant's guilty plea. He is entitled to a one-third discount off the starting point which brings the sentence down to 20 years' imprisonment.
Defendant, I sentence you to 20 years’ imprisonment.