HKSAR v. SK JAHID

DCCC 606/2015

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  SK Jahid you have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in 7,776 grammes of cannabis resin, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance[1].

2.  Full particulars of the offence are set out in the facts admitted by you on 9 November 2015.  In summary on 1 February this year you arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport on a flight from Kolkata, India.  At about 8:10 a.m. you were intercepted by customs officers for customs clearance.  Examination of your luggage revealed eight packets containing the cannabis hidden inside a carton box underneath packets of spice powder.  Photographs of the carton box and how the cannabis was packaged have been produced to court. 

3.  In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on your behalf by Mr Sujanani, including your young age and that you became involved in trafficking drugs because of the financial difficulties of your family arising after your father passed away four years ago.  I also take into account that you have a clear record.  This however carries little weight where you are a visitor to Hong Kong. 

4.   In Attorney General v Tuen Shui Ming & another[2] the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for sentencing.  Where the quantity of cannabis resin is over 6000 grammes and less than 9000 grammes the sentence after trial is between 3 and 4 years imprisonment.    

5.  I am satisfied the appropriate starting point after trial for trafficking in 7,776 grammes is 3 years and 6 months imprisonment.   Importing cannabis into Hong Kong from India adds an international element to the offence and is an aggravating feature of sentence by reason of which I enhance the starting point by 3 months to 3 years and 9 months imprisonment.  Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty reduces the sentence to 2 years and 6 monthsimprisonment.

Assistance to the authorities

6.  When you were interviewed by the police you said the carton box was given to you by a male in Kolkata and that after arriving in Hong Kong you would return the box to the male.  Immediately prior to passing sentence on 9 November, Mr Polson very properly informed the court that after your arrest you assisted Customs Officers in a controlled delivery which led to the arrest of this male. 

7.  Sentence was adjourned until today for Mr Sujanani to make further submissions as to whether you should be given a greater discount than one-third for pleading guilty, by reason of the assistance given leading to the arrest of this male. 

8.  Mr Polson has today submitted to court a chronology of events relating to the arrest of this male.  The male was charged.  After legal advice was sought the charge was withdrawn against the male due to insufficient evidence. 

9.  Mr Sujanani informs the court that you were never asked to give what is called a non-prejudicial statement.  Mr Polson, having read the legal advice leading to the withdrawal of the charge, confirms the withdrawal of the charge appears to have been made without giving consideration of whether to ask you to give a non-prejudicial statement. 

10.  Mr Sujanani has submitted seven cases for my consideration[3].  In HKSAR v Jardin Rodela Maningas the applicant imported drugs on behalf of someone else from Manila.  After her arrest the applicant was willing to engage in a controlled delivery to the persons who were to collect the drugs from her.  The Court of Appeal held that credit should have been given for that assistance albeit, through no fault of the applicant, the delivery was unsuccessful. 

11.  The Court of Appeal reduced a 20 year sentence imposed after trial by 18 months. Had the applicant pleaded guilty that would have represented a 40% discount.  In HKSAR v Chan Yuk Yin Zervos J also gave a 40% discount where the defendant had assisted in a controlled delivery of the drugs he imported into Hong Kong, although again through no fault of the defendant the delivery was unsuccessful. 

12.  You also assisted in a controlled delivery which led to the male who asked you to bring the drugs to Hong Kong being arrested and charged.  The charge was withdrawn due to insufficient evidence and without apparent consideration of whether to ask you to give a non-prejudicial statement. 

13.  In the circumstances I am satisfied you too are entitled to a 40% discount in sentence.  You are convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 3 monthsimprisonment.