COURT: Defendant, on 8 August 2022, you pleaded guilty before a magistrate at the Eastern Magistrates’ Court to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. You admitted that on 13 July 2020, at the staircase near Flat 905, Tin Kei House, Shun Tin Estate, Kwun Tong, Kowloon in Hong Kong, you unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, a liquid which upon drying, was found to contain 367.1 grammes of a solid containing 301.7 grammes of cocaine.
On that same date, you admitted a Summary of Facts. Those facts, in support of this trafficking charge, can briefly be stated as follows.
Originally, you were charged with another defendant, Kung Kwong-kwan, who has after trial been found not guilty of this same offence. I shall refer to her as “D1”. On 10 July 2020, Customs Officers found, upon an inbound parcel from Malaysia, liquid which upon drying, contained cocaine.
The street value of this cocaine was $593,232.60.
This parcel was repacked and sealed, and ready to be delivered to D1, as the package or the parcel was addressed to D1’s residential address and her name. The parcel was successfully delivered to her on 13 July by Customs Officers disguised as couriers. After she received the parcel, she was arrested. She co-operated in a controlled delivery operation with the Customs Officers.
During the controlled delivery operation, D1 contacted a male named ‘Bosco Gor’. Bosco Gor then told her that a person would come to collect the parcel. You then arrived at the door of D1’s address and received the parcel. Following your receipt of the parcel, you were arrested and cautioned.
You originally told the Customs Officers that you did not know what was in the parcel. However, through your plea of guilty to the court, you have acknowledged that you knew full well that there were drugs inside that parcel.
The prosecution had found in your phone some WhatsApp messages with a person called ‘Lat Tat’. They concerned messages in regard to other matters to which you were tried before this court and found not guilty. This person, however, Lat Tat, was the person who had sent you to collect the parcel, and it is from the trial, we know Lat Tat is not apparently the same person as Bosco Gor.
The WhatsApp messages that you admitted to in the Summary of Facts was that Lat Tat asked you to recruit people to collect a parcel. You were offered a cash reward of $10,000. You then revealed your interest to help Lat Tat to collect the parcel as you were short of money. Lat Tat told you to reconsider as it is not 100 per cent safe, and there is always a danger.
Lat Tat again asked you to recruit people to collect the parcel and offered a cash reward from $20,000 to $30,000. Then, that reward was reduced to $10,000 to $15,000 on another day. Eventually, instead of recruiting other people, you yourself went to collect the parcel. For that reason, you accept and admit, therefore, you knew when you went to collect the parcel, there were drugs inside the parcel. As no doubt, that was a large reward for receipt of a parcel.
In mitigation made by Mr Yu to this court and what I have heard in the trial, you are now 25 years of age. At the time of this offence, you were 20 years of age. You are a man of clear record, never having committed an offence before. You are single, and at the material time, you lived with your father and your younger sister who was then 19.
As Mr Yu has said today, you have all along been a hardworking young man. You had left school at Form 4, and had worked in various jobs. As result of COVID and the social unrest, you became only a part time worker. Also as a result of your mother deserting your family, you then started to mingle with undesirable peers. One such person was this person called Lat Tat. As a result of Lat Tat, you committed this offence for the purposes of earning quick and easy money.
You did, of course, plead guilty at the very first opportunity and admitted your guilt. I have been told by Mr Yu that you are very remorseful for your crime, and that you will endeavour to start afresh after you serve your period of imprisonment.
No doubt you know, trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very serious offence, to which the court in Hong Kong has set down guidelines or tariffs for trafficking in drugs, particularly in respect of the quantity of drugs involved. This court is obliged to follow those guidelines or tariffs.
The approach to sentencing in drug trafficking cases are laid down in cases called HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and complemented in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150. In applying the principles and steps, they are as follows.
The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the relevant guideline or band applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. In this case, there is no dispute that you were trafficking in cocaine, and the quantity involved was 301.7 grammes of cocaine. The tariff case for the drugs heroin and cocaine is laid out in that of The Queen v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLRD 370.
The second step is to assess the role and culpability of you in committing the offence on the evidence. In this case, on the evidence before the court, you were clearly a courier who was employed by someone called Lat Tat.
The third step is to identify where in the relevant band you come. The relevant band for 301.7 grammes of cocaine falls within the band of 200 to 400 grammes, which attracts a sentence of between 12 and 15 years’ imprisonment if you have been convicted after trial. I consider that you are at the lower end as you were only a courier in this offence, and I therefore consider an appropriate starting point, should you have been convicted after trial, of 13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
The fourth step is to consider if there are any aggravating features. In this case, defendant, I do not consider there to be any aggravating features. Although the parcel came from Malaysia to Hong Kong, there was no evidence whatsoever that you were aware that the parcel came from Malaysia, so I do not think there is an international element regarding aggravation in your case.
Turning to the fifth step, that is to consider all mitigating factors. I have heard why you committed this offence, but personal circumstances generally count for little in this very serious trafficking of drugs offences. I do not consider there to be any personal circumstances that warrant any mitigation. The only and strongest mitigating factor is your early plea of guilty. You pleaded guilty before a magistrate now two years ago to reflect that you are guilty, and for that the courts have recognised for pleas at the earliest opportunity, the courts should give defendants a one-third discount.
Defendant, the starting point that I consider, had you been convicted after trial, is 13 years and 6 months. Giving you the one-third discount, you shall be sentenced to serve 9 years’ imprisonment.
The sixth step is to observe the overall sentence passed to ensure it is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offences and the offender. And in this particular case, I consider it to be so.