The facts, all too common in Hong Kong in the last 2 years, are that at about 4.00 pm on 26 July last year the defendant arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport on a flight from Doha. He was intercepted and subsequently examined and subsequently discharged a total of 33 packets of suspected dangerous drugs, which after analysis by the Government Chemist confirmed that it was the quantity as disclosed in the particulars of the charge.
The defendant under caution said that he would be given US$4,000 for bringing cocaine to Hong Kong and that he was to deliver it to someone. The dangerous drug seized had an estimated retail value at the time of seizure of HK$1.266 million.
The defendant is aged 41 and has a clear record in Hong Kong. He is a Columbian national and I understand from the mitigation on his behalf by Ms Crebbin that he is a married man, self-employed and was dealing in mobile phones and electronic products. It was as a result of a loan which he had obtained from some loan sharks in Colombia to open his shop that led him to commit this offence. The US$4,000 was the amount the loan sharks wanted returned and they told him that if he did this trafficking it would clear the debt.
Ms Crebbin had pled on his behalf that he as a Columbian did not realise the heavy penalties that would be visited upon people trafficking in dangerous drugs in Hong Kong and therefore, as a result, the defendant, in gaol whilst awaiting sentence, started a movement with other Columbians by letters to persuade the government to make the legal implications of carrying drugs into Hong Kong clear to other people in Columbia. In fact, they have also written to newspapers in Columbia to try and publicise this fact.
I have no doubt that the defendant is remorseful. Clearly, the defendant is not the mastermind. As Ms Crebbin correctly identified, the only real mitigation in this case is the fact that he has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
The background as to why the defendant committed this offence is actually not unique. Drug traffickers prey on people who want money and need money or are greedy to earn easy money. The courts in Hong Kong are fighting an almost losing battle daily against drug importation because our borders are open. Our Customs officers have a very difficult time actually locating and identifying people who are carrying drugs into Hong Kong.
I cannot emphasise enough the fact that these drugs have caused countless, innumerable tragedies in our community. It is not just cocaine. It is all other forms of drugs. It has caused children to be dissociated from their parents and it is very sad. The courts have recognised that we have to be very severe as far as sentencing is concerned.
Every defendant has a sad story to tell but this pales into insignificance when one weighs it against the devastation caused by drugs in our community. Guidelines have been set for trafficking in a large quantity of drugs. As Ms Crebbin pointed out, the court has laid down that the guidelines for trafficking in heroin are applicable to trafficking in cocaine.
As early as 1990 in the case of Lau Tak Ming guidelines have been laid down that trafficking in 400 to 600 grammes of heroin will merit a sentence of 15 to 20 years. The defendant in this case was found with 600 grammes of cocaine so that would merit a starting point of 20 years.
The aggravating factor in this case is the importation. I do appreciate that the Court of Appeal has also stressed that this is an aggravating factor and should be taken into account when sentencing.
In this case, Ms Crebbin has asked that instead of imposing a severe importation aggravating feature by imposing an additional sentence of a year or more, that I should consider something less. Unfortunately, I do not see how that can be done. I consider that 1 year is already the least sentence that can be added for the aggravating feature of importation.
The starting point in this case will be one of 20 years’ imprisonment plus 1 year for the importation which will bring it to 21 years. Reducing it by the full one-third discount because of the defendant’s early plea, the defendant will go to prison for 14 years.