COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug on 22 August last year before a Magistrate, and he was committed to the High Court for sentence.
The 1st charge alleged that on the 13th day of December 2022, outside Tower 6 of Rambler Crest in Tsing Yi, he unlawfully trafficked in 4.278 kilogrammes of ketamine narcotic. The 2nd charge alleged that on the same day, inside a flat at Tower 6 of Rambler Crest in Tsing Yi, he unlawfully trafficked in 395.09 grammes of MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy narcotic.
According to the Summary of Facts to which he admitted at the time of his plea of guilty, on the morning of 2 December 2022 the Hong Kong Customs and Excise intercepted a consignment from the United Kingdom at the Hong Kong International Airport.
In this consignment, there were five sealed plastic bags which contained a total of 4.949 kilogrammes of a solid containing 4.278 kilogrammes of ketamine. That is the subject of the 1st charge. The estimated street value of the consignment of drug was HK$2,875,369.
On 13 December 2022, the defendant, via the use of a mobile phone, number 64317816, instructed a Lalamove light goods vehicle driver to collect the parcel from the collection centre, and he also provided the driver with the parcel number and the parcel passcode via WhatsApp to facilitate the collection of the parcel. He promised to give the driver $200 for a reward. He also asked the driver to pay for the parcel’s shipment fee and deliver it to ground floor of Tower 6 at Rambler Crest in Tsing Yi.
The driver then participated in a controlled delivery together with members of the Customs and Excise. Eventually the parcel was delivered to Tower 6 of Rambler Crest. The defendant was the person who turned up to collect the parcel and paid cash of $650 to the driver for the job. He was intercepted by the customs officers and he immediately threw the parcel onto the ground and tried to run away. Eventually he was intercepted and arrested by the customs officers and he remained silent under caution.
Upon search, the customs officers found a total of two iPhones containing a total of three different SIM cards. One of the SIM cards was for the phone number of 64317816 which was used to contact the Lalamove driver for the collection of the parcel. Cash of $4,993.20 and a key card were also found on the defendant.
The defendant was taken back to his residence at Flat H on the 22nd Floor of Tower 6 of Rambler Crest and the officers gained entry by using the key card seized from his person. Inquiries revealed that flat was rented by the defendant on a two-year tenancy since 8 November 2022 at monthly rental of $13,500.
Upon search of the premises, the customs officers found a large number of small blue sealed bags containing all the drug particularised in the 2nd charge, the ecstasy, and also a large number of packaging and weighing paraphernalia including numerous small blue bags, many resealable plastic bags, blenders, electronic balances, heat sealers, scissors, tapes, stapler, markers. Also there were receipts and written notes apparently related to drug transaction.
The telephone record of the mobile phone seized from the defendant shows that he was the person who had telephone contact, or his number was the number that had telephone contact, with the Lalamove driver on 13 December 2022.
Footages from the CCTV camera of the flat also revealed that for the period between 8 November and 13 December 2022, on multiple occasions the defendant appeared in the flat and was engaged in the weighing, packaging or repackaging of certain matters into the small blue bags and sealed them with the heat sealer. On one occasion he did so together with an unknown male; otherwise he handled the packaging and weighing paraphernalia in the premises all by himself.
On the morning of 12 December, he took out some ecstasy and weighed it on the electronic balance. Later he changed the SIM card on his phone before he had contact with the Lalamove driver and left the flat to collect the consignment that contained the drug from the United Kingdom.
The defendant admits that he possessed all the drugs seized in this case for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
The defendant is now 20 years of age and he was 18 years old, almost 19, at the time when he committed the present offences. He has a criminal record for the offence of gambling in gambling establishment and he was fined for that matter in December 2022.
I understand that when he committed the present offences, he was being released on police bail for a case of indecent assault. Upon his arrest by the Customs and Excise officers for the present case, he refused to give any personal information to the officers.
In mitigation, counsel Ms Maria So informed me that he was the only child of the family. He is single and he has studied up to Form 4 education standard. Since afterwards, he was engaged in various part-time jobs until the middle of 2022. He committed the present offences to earn quick money and also due to his very poor judgment without considering the consequences. Counsel urged me to take into account his early plea of guilty to the offences, and I was informed that he tried to enrol in various courses while he was being remanded.
Counsel urged me to calculate the whole lot of the drugs in Charges 1 and 2 together, and to exercise leniency in view of his age and the support and love from his family. A total of three mitigating letters respectively written by the defendant, his parents and his grandmother were also submitted to plead for leniency.
In sentencing the defendant, I bear in mind the principle enunciated by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75 in respect of how to sentence for two trafficking offences where different quantities of dangerous drugs were found in the defendant’s possession on the same day but at different locations. The Court said that the judge should regard the two offences as representing one occasion of possession of the total amount of drugs and impose sentences on both offences for that total, making the sentences concurrent with one another. Such an approach would more truly reflect the accused person’s culpability.
This is the approach that I will follow in my sentencing of the defendant for all charges in the present case.
I will also bear in mind the approach stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as modified by the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
The sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine and ecstasy are the same. In respect of the 1st charge, the quantity of narcotic involved is 4,278 grammes of ketamine and in respect of the 2nd charge, 395.09 grammes of ecstasy. So the total quantity of narcotic involved in both charges is 4,673.09 grammes of ketamine or ecstasy.
According to the sentencing guideline, when one is involved in trafficking of over 3,000 grammes of ketamine or ecstasy, the starting point could exceed 20 years’ imprisonment even though the increase in sentence should not be proportionate to the increase in the quantity of the drug.
I shall take into account the role and the culpability of the defendant. According to the Summary of Facts admitted by him, in respect of the 1st charge, he was arrested in a controlled delivery of a huge drug consignment that was imported from the United Kingdom. He was engaged in the engagement of the Lalamove driver to collect the consignment on 13 December 2022. He gave instruction to the driver and also he provided the driver with the parcel number and the parcel passcode to facilitate the collection. He also paid for the shipment fee and the reward of the driver upon receipt of the parcel.
And, of course, he was the one who collected the parcel from the driver himself and apparently, according to the CCTV recording, he was careful enough to change the SIM card in one of his phones before he was engaged in the conversation with the driver and before he left home to collect the parcel from the driver.
In respect of the 2nd charge, from the CCTV recording and from the information that he rented the premises since 8 November at monthly rental of $13,500, he was engaged in the renting of the premises which was used only for the purpose of weighing, packaging and repackaging of dangerous drug. He was recorded by the CCTV to be actively involved in the weighing and packaging and repackaging of the dangerous drug in the premises on multiple days since the premises was rented, or actively involved for about two weeks before his arrest.
So in the consideration of his role and culpability, I take into account these three factors which I considered would have aggravated the situation.
First of all, the involvement of the international element in Charge 1 and counsel also agreed that there is an international element involved in that matter.
Secondly, his role and culpability that for the period of about a month, he was involved in the renting of the premises used solely as a storage place and for the weighing and repackaging of the drugs. He himself also, on multiple occasions for at least two weeks, actively involved in the weighing and the packaging of the drug inside the premises.
And thirdly, that two different types of dangerous drugs were involved, that is ketamine and ecstasy. That means that he has the ability to cater for a wider market and also the court should bear in mind the effect of the combination of the drugs on the drug users.
Bearing in mind all those aggravating features and his overall culpability, I consider that the notional starting point after trial should be one of 21 years’ imprisonment.
Then I should consider the personal circumstances of the defendant. He was almost 19 years of age at the time of the offences. But for his young age there was really nothing unusual about his personal circumstances. Of course he cannot be considered to be of extreme youth at the time.
Given the fact that the present offences were committed while he was released on police bail for another case, I consider that should be treated as an aggravating feature. So for that matter I would add 3 months to the notional starting point of 21 years. That will increase the starting point to 21 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges at an early stage. As such, he is fully entitled to the one-third discount and I will reduce the sentence by one-third to 14 years and 2 months’ imprisonment for that matter.
Given the fact that he was only 18 years of age at the material time and there was no previous involvement in drug trafficking, I consider that it would be appropriate to exercise my discretion to give him a further reduction of 6 months. So he will be sentenced to a total of 13 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for both Charges 1 and 2.
So bearing in mind the principle enunciated in the case of Wan Lau Mei, for each of Charges 1 and 2 I would impose a sentence of 13 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, and I will order both sentences to be served totally concurrent to one another. So the ultimate total sentence is also one of 13 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.