HKSAR v. GABRIELA SITORUS AND ANOTHER

HCCC 4/2024
HCCC 5/2024
(Heard Together)

[2026] HKCFI 1504

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 4 OF 2024

________________________

AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 5 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  HCCC 4/2024 and HCCC 5/2024 concern three defendants, Madam Gabriela Sitorus (“D1”), Mr Lau Ho-yeung (“D2”) and Madam Chin Yin-ling Elaine (“D3”).

2.  D3 pleaded guilty to one charge of “conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs” and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 2 January 2024.  Her case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.  Before this court this morning, D3 confirmed her plea and her agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

3.  At the hearing on 2 January 2024, D1 and D2 pleaded not guilty and were committed to the Court of First Instance for trial.  A trial hearing was subsequently fixed for 14 October 2025, with 20 days reserved. 

4.  On 29 September 2025, D1 informed the court that her plea would be changed to one of guilty.

5.  On 9 October 2025, D2 also informed the court that his plea will be changed to one of guilty. 

6.  On 17 October 2025, D1 and D2 formally pleaded guilty to the same charge of “conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs” and admitted the Summary of Facts dated 15 October 2025. 

7.  Both cases were adjourned to today for sentence.

8.  The particulars of the charge to which the 1st to 3rd defendants pleaded guilty provide that between 30 July 2020 and 23 September 2020, in Hong Kong, the defendants conspired together and with person or persons unknown, to unlawfully traffic in dangerous drugs. 

9.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendants provides, inter alia, as follows.  Between 30 July 2020 and 23 September 2020, both dates inclusive, D1, D2 and D3 conspired together and with other person or persons unknown to collect parcels from overseas which contained dangerous drugs.

Parcel A and the arrest of D1

10.  On 5 September 2020, in a routine checking exercise at the Hong Kong International Airport, Customs Officer 16308 examined an inbound parcel bearing checking number EE 185 281 956 CA (“Parcel A”) sent from Canada.  Tests conducted with itemizer, spectrum analyser and narcotest reagent on the content of Parcel A all yielded positive reactions to cocaine.  Parcel A was passed to Customs Officer 17285 for follow-up investigation. 

11.  On 9 September 2020, controlled delivery operation (“CDO”) was arranged for Parcel A.  Notification Card A was put in the mail box of the recipient’s address in Yau Ma Tei.

12.  At about 8.45 am on 10 September 2020, Customs Officer 17285 brought Parcel A to Kowloon Central Post Office to prepare for CDO.  A male claiming to be the consignee of Parcel A called the Hong Kong Post hotline to make an enquiry, the male provided the contact number 9543 4613 and requested to be called back.

13.  Customs Officer 17285 called the number at about 3.25 pm on the same day, a male answered and claimed to be the consignee of Parcel A and asked about the status of Parcel A.  The male was told that Parcel A was ready for collection in the Kowloon Central Post Office. 

14.  At about 5.42 pm on the same day, D1 presented an authorization letter and Notification Card A to a postal officer in the Kowloon Central Post Office and called for collection of Parcel A.  Having checked the identity document (a Form 8 Recognizance) of D1 against the authorization letter, the postal officer passed the Notification Card A to Customs Officer 17285 for handling.

15.  At about 5.44 pm on the same day, Customs Officer 17285 met D1 at counter 11 of Kowloon Central Post Office.  He checked the Form 8 Recognizance presented by D1 and confirmed that she was to collect Parcel A.  He asked D1 to write her name and Form 8 Recognizance number and to sign on the acknowledgement receipt before handing her Parcel A. D1 did as requested, collected and carried Parcel A in her hands and was intercepted when she stepped outside the Kowloon Central Post Office. 

16.  At about 5.46 pm on the same day, D1 was arrested by Customs Officer 1697.  At about 5.50 pm, Customs Officer 17285 seized Parcel A from D1. 

17.  Upon arrest and under caution, D1 said her friends Ah Moon and Ah Yeung provided her with a piece of paper and told her to collect Parcel A.  Ah Moon and Ah Yeung were outside the post office.  She did not know what was inside Parcel A.  She was supposed to hand Parcel A to them after collection.  She saved Ah Moon’s telephone number 6093 7497 under the contact “MamyQu Love” and Ah Yeung’s phone number 9543 4613 under the contact “Yeung” in her mobile phone. 

18.  D1 was asked if she was willing to cooperate with Customs by taking part in a CDO to hand over Parcel A to Ah Moon and Ah Yeung and she answered yes, and she also consented to Customs Officers checking her mobile phone and to use it for the CDO.  Her mobile phone was checked and the contact details of Ah Moon and Ah Yeung were found.  D1 participated in the CDO but it was fruitless. 

19.  D1 had an orange notepad with handwriting, a blue notepad with handwriting (“Notebook A”) found in her rucksack and a Huawei mobile phone with her when she was arrested.

20.  On 10 September 2020 from 5.46 pm to 7.25 pm, D1 voluntarily participated in the video-recorded interview, during which she said Ah Yeung and Ah Moon asked her to collect Parcel A.  On the day of her arrest, she met Ah Yeung and Ah Moon in a game centre in Yau Ma Tei.  Upon request of Ah Moon, she provided her Form 8 Recognizance for Ah Moon to write the authorization letter.  Ah Moon told her she would get $4,000 to $8,000 as reward but did not specify how much she would be paid.  Then Ah Moon gave her the authorization letter and Notification Card A and instructed Ah Yeung to bring her to a post office.  Ah Moon also gave her Notebook A because Ah Moon did not want to carry it by hand.  The orange notepad belonged to Ah Yeung as she saw Ah Yeung wrote something on it.  After she arrived at the post office, Ah Yeung instructed her to go inside, and she collected Parcel A. 

21.  Upon examination of the content of the orange notepad and Notebook A, Customs Inspector Fong Tsz-yeung found information of various parcels including Parcel A in the orange notepad and information of various parcels including Parcels 1 to 7 in Notebook A.  The said information includes parcel tracking numbers, names, addresses, phone numbers and estimated dates of arrival.  In particular, Notebook A had information of Parcels 1 to 7 which had been intercepted and seized by Customs Officers in August and September 2020.  Parcels 1 to 7 had been tested and found to contain cocaine, CDO had been arranged but no one turned up to collect these seven parcels. 

22.  Next to the information of Parcel 4 recorded in Notebook A, remarks that “Police disguised as courier” were written.  Hotlines of courier companies, D1’s full name and her Form 8 Recognizance number, D2’s full name and his Hong Kong ID card number were also written in Notebook A.

23.  Customs Inspector Fong further found in the orange notepad and Notebook A some addresses believed to be used as consignees’ addresses.  These addresses were brought to the attention of the Hong Kong Post.

24.  In a subsequent record of interview taken on 10 February 2021, D1 confirmed to Customs Officer that Ah Yeung was D2 and Ah Moon was D3. 

Parcel B, arrest of D2 and D3

25.  On 18 September 2020, Customs Officers were informed by the Hong Kong Post that there was a parcel bearing tracking number CP 455 034 441 ES (“Parcel B”) sent from Spain to one of the addresses in Yuen Long as recorded in Notebook A.  Parcel B was then intercepted and the content was tested by Customs Officer Lo and found to yield positive reaction to cocaine.  CDO was arranged for Parcel B on 21 September 2020.  Notification Card B was put in the mailbox of the recipient’s address in Yuen Long.

26.  On 23 September 2020, in the Yuen Long Post Office, D2 presented Notification Card B, an authorization letter and his Hong Kong Identity Card to collect Parcel B.  Having checked his identity document against the authorization letter, D2 was asked to sign on the acknowledgement receipt, he collected Parcel B and held it in his hands.  D2 left Yuen Long Post Office and was intercepted by Customs Officer when he stepped outside the post office.

27.  At about 10.26 am on 23 September 2020, D2 was arrested and cautioned by Customs Officer 1502 for contravening the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.  D2 said under caution that Ah Moon gave him the authorization letter and HK$100 and instructed him to collect Parcel B.  He was supposed to pass Parcel B to Ah Moon after collection.  He claimed to have no idea what Parcel B contained.  He saved Ah Moon’s telephone number 5982 3887 under the contact of “Moon” in his mobile phone. 

28.  Apart from Parcel B, D2 had with him a mobile phone with number 5422 7467 at the time of his arrest. He agreed to take part in a CDO during which he contacted a person named Ah Moon and requested to meet up for passing Parcel B to her.  But Ah Moon did not seem to believe D2 and refused to meet up.  Ah Moon instructed D2 to take a taxi to Chi Ma Leng instead.  Meanwhile, plainclothes Customs Officers in the vicinity looked for Ah Moon and they found D3 in a nearby 7-Eleven store matching the appearance of Ah Moon as described by D2.

29.  At about 11.02 am on 23 September 2020, Customs Officer intercepted D3 outside the nearby 7-Eleven store.  Whilst Customs Officers instructed D2 to call Ah Moon, D3’s mobile phone rang and the call was connected.  Upon arrest and caution, D3 admitted that the mobile phone just rang belonged to her, and that her friend Yeung Chai called her.  At that time, D3 had with her a Samsung mobile phone with two SIM cards numbered 5227 0713 and 5442 2677 and a Huawei mobile phone with number 5423 2159. 

30.  When D3 was brought back to the Customs and Excise Office on 23 September 2020, D2 identified D3 as his friend named Ah Moon. 

31.  On 24 September 2020 from 6.12 pm to 7.33 pm, D2 voluntarily participated in a video-recorded interview, during which he said D3 had asked him to monitor the vicinity near Kowloon Central Post Office in mid‑September 2020, where he saw a black woman being caught by law enforcement agency after collecting a parcel.  D3 asked him to go away after the black woman was caught.  He knew the black woman used phone number 9179 8069.  On 22 September 2020, D3 offered him a parcel collection job and sent the information of Parcel B to him.  After confirming that Parcel B was available for collection, he sent a photo of his ID card to D3 via WhatsApp.  On 23 September 2020, D3 asked for his ID card number and wrote it down on the authorization letter in front of him at a game center. The mobile phone seized from him was given by D3 for checking location of parcels.  The phone number 5422 7467 and 9543 4613 belonged to him.  D3 sent him information of Parcel B, Parcel 7, Parcel 9 and Parcel 10 to check their status. 

32.  On 17 February 2021, from 9.45 am to 2.00 pm, D2 voluntarily participated in an interview and said under caution that Ah Moon gave him information of parcels for checking their status, which he had noted down in the orange notepad.  Notebook A belonged to Ah Moon and he had copied parcel information from it.  He said that D1 was the black woman he mentioned previously.  He was with D3 when he witnessed D1 being arrested by Customs Officer.  He was instructed by D3 to collect the parcels. 

Further investigation against D3

33.  On 24 September 2020, Customs Officers escorted D3 to her house in Shui Mei Tsuen, Yuen Long for house search.  They gained access into the house by using two keys found in D3’s possession.  They found therein five pieces of papers with handwriting, a yellow school notebook with handwriting (“Notebook B”) and a Samsung mobile phone amongst other things. 

34.  Notebook B contained information of various parcels including Parcel 1, D2’s full name and his Hong Kong ID number and various telephone numbers.

35.  Information of four more inbound parcels (Parcels 8 to 11) that were intercepted by Customs Officers and found to contain dangerous drugs with tracking numbers listed below were found recorded in the following exhibits seized from D3 and D2:

(1) Parcel 8, tracking number 2255186662, and it was found in the messages in the Samsung mobile phone seized from D3.

(2) Parcel 9, tracking number 3368993342, was found in the messages in the mobile phone seized from D2 and the Samsung mobile phone seized from D3.

(3) Parcel 10, tracking number 6093492226, was found in messages in the mobile phone seized from D2 and the Samsung mobile phone seized from D3.

(4) Parcel 11, tracking number 9018010540, it was found on the five sheets of paper with handwriting seized in D3’s house.

36.  Screening of D2’s and D3’s mobile phones were performed by Customs Officers.  Screenshots of D2’s mobile phone and D3’s two mobile phones were arranged into respective photo albums. 

37.  D2’s mobile phone was found to contain, inter alia, the following contents that were part and parcel of the conspiracy:    

(1) WhatsApp messages with “Moon” saved under 5423 2159 (D3’s number);

(2) D1’s phone number saved as contact of “Black Sister”;

(3) Photographs of a news article about the arrest of D1 on 10 September 2020;

(4) Messages with D3 on 14 September 2020 and 15 September 2020 that Yau Ma Tei Post Office was dangerous and how their involvement should be undetected;

(5) Screenshots of messages sent from D3 on 15 September 2020 concerning “silly girl” was arrested and D3 had left a notebook with her. D3 said as a result, her boss lost money for 10 or more deals;

(6) Screenshots of tracking records of various parcels recorded in Notebooks A and B which included Parcel 9 and Parcel 10;

(7) Screenshots of WhatsApp exchanges with D3 about Parcel 7, Parcel 9 and Parcel B;

(8) Photograph of a page from Notebook A which contains particulars of Parcel 4; and

(9) Photographs of various parcels.

38.  Screenshots of D3’s mobile phones were found to contain, inter alia, the following:

(1) WhatsApp messages with Yeung Chai (D2’s phone number);

(2) Messages with 9179 8069 (D1’s phone number) under the contact name “Silly”;

(3) Messages with various people discussing parcel collecting jobs, the reward (HK$8,000) and quantity of drugs (200 grammes of coke);

(4) Messages with D2 requesting him to check status of Parcels 7, 9 and B and reminding him to delete messages;

(5) Photograph of declaration of Parcel 7;

(6) Photograph of an overseas receipt of Parcel B;

(7) Photograph of a Malaysian passport sent by D2 that was similar to the passport copy presented by D1 when she collected Parcel A (the name of the passport holder was different);

(8) Photographs of SIM card holders, one of them being the consignee contact number of Parcel A;

(9) Screenshots about “silly girl” was arrested and D3 had left a notebook with her. D3 said as a result, her boss lost money for 10 or more deals;

(10) Screenshots of tracking records, photographs or WhatsApp messages relating to Parcels 1, 6 to 10;

(11) Information of various parcels found in Notebooks A and B;

(12) Photographs of content written in Notebook B;

(13) Notification card for collection of unseized parcel;

(14) A photograph showing an authorization letter by male Ng Ka-lung authorizing D2 to collect a parcel on 14 August 2020 that was not seized; and

(15) Messages to others expressing her worries for D2’s arrest.

39.  D3 was interviewed by Customs Officer on 10 November 2023.  D3 revealed that the orange notepad belonged to D2 who used it to record postal information.  Notebook A belonged to her and the record therein was written by her.  The orange notepad and Notebook A were given to D1 whilst they were on the way to the post office because D3 saw that there were lots of Blue Berets (Police Officers) nearby and were afraid that the orange notepad and Notebook A would be found.  They planned to take back the orange notepad and Notebook A after D1 collected Parcel A.

Narcotic content and the estimated retail value of the 13 Parcels

40.  Parcels A and B, Parcels 1 to 11 were sent to Government Laboratory for examination.  Government Chemist confirmed that the 13 parcels contained dangerous drugs (cocaine and MDMA).  The detailed contents of Parcels A and B and Parcels 1 to 11 have been set out at paragraph 32 of the Admitted Summary of Facts by D1 and D2, and I shall not repeat it here. 

41.  Suffice to say that the total amount of drugs seized was 5,604.6 grammes of cocaine and 582.1 grammes of MDMA, with an estimated street value of HK$14,759,292.

42.  As far as their criminal record is concerned, D1 has one previous conviction of breach of condition of stay, for which she was sentenced to 16 days’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.

43.  D2 has one previous conviction of possession of dangerous drugs, for which he was fined $3,000.

44.  D3 has a clear record. 

45.  The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.  The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band (or bracket) applicable to the quantity of drug concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes.  It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant.  The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”.  The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced sentence”. 

46.  I shall deal first with the sentence of D3. 

47.  Regarding the first step, the task is to identify the appropriate range applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. 

48.  From the Written Mitigation of D3 dated 14October 2025 and as confirmed by D3’s counsel today, D3 clearly accepts that she is responsible for all the drugs revealed in the Summary of Facts  (ie Parcel A, Parcel B and Parcels 1 to 11), totaling 5,604.6 grammes of cocaine and 582.10 grammes of MDMA.

49.  In HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the guideline bracket for a quantity of 5,604.6 grammes of cocaine is 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment.  According to Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng[2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the guideline bracket for a quantity of 582.10 grammes of MDMA is 9 to 12 years’ imprisonment. 

50.  As two different kinds of drugs were involved with a combined weight of 6,186.70 grammes, in order to assist me in identifying the overall starting point of the offences, the “Absurdity Test”, “Ratio Test” and “Conversion Test” as explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013 (Judgment dated 8 April 2014) have been conducted with the following results: 24 years and 4.3 months under the Absurdity Test, 22 years and 0.8 month under the Ratio Test and 24 years and 2.9 months under the Conversion Test.

51.  Having considered the above results in the round and taking into account that more than one type of dangerous drug is involved, I consider that the starting point of 24 years and 2 months would be appropriate in the present case.  This is purely based on the quantity and types of drugs involved, before any consideration of the defendant’s role in the offence. 

52.  Second, concerning D3’s role and culpability, this case clearly involves an international element.  This is an important factor when assessing the role and culpability of D3 in order to identify the appropriate starting point for sentence.  I have to bear in mind the quantity of narcotic being introduced into Hong Kong, which not only increases the supply of the particular dangerous drug but causes great harm to the community: see HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho, supra, at paragraph 74.

53.  Third, for the international element of this case as held above, I would increase the “notional sentence after trial” by 24 months, taking it to 26 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

54.  Fourth, in the case of D3, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the “notional sentence after trial”. 

55.  Fifth, as far as mitigating factor is concerned, I will of course take into account D3’s guilty plea, which was tendered at the first opportunity.  Moreover, as submitted by D3, she has rendered useful assistance to the prosecution.  She has been cooperative with the Customs and Excise Department.  In that regard, D3 provided two non-prejudicial witness statements dated respectively 4 September 2023 and 10 November 2023 against D1 and D2.  Importantly, D3 was willing to act as a prosecution witness, being ready to testify against D1 and D2 at their trial. 

56.  All in all, I consider that D3 falls into the category of someone who has offered to testify for the prosecution, but whose offer has not been taken up because of some supervening event beyond her control, namely the other defendants pleading guilty. 

57.  Having regard to the totality of D3’s assistance and her timely guilty plea, I am of the view that the appropriate discount for D3 is 41.33%.  Accordingly, D3’s sentence in this case is reduced to 15 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. 

58.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 15 years and 4 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of D3. 

59.  I turn now to the sentence of D1. 

60.  Regarding the first step, the task is to identify the appropriate starting point applicable to the quantity of drugs agreed to be trafficked by D1.  In this regard, I accept D1’s submissions that from the Summary of Facts, D1 was only involved in the trafficking of Parcel A (ie 826 grammes of cocaine).  According to HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3), supra, on an arithmetical approach, 826 grammes of cocaine would attract a starting point of around 17 years and 3.6 months’ imprisonment.

61.  Regarding the second step concerning D1’s role and culpability, I do not accept D1’s submissions that she was not involved in the importation of the parcel of drugs in question.  D1 was asked to go to the Kowloon Central Post Office for the collection of Parcel A.  She presented an authorization letter and a Notification Card to the postal officer.  Clearly, D1 must have known and did know that Parcel A came from abroad.  The collection of Parcel A at the post office was clearly the last step in importing Parcel A to Hong Kong from Canada. 

62.  Third, for the international element of importing 826 grammes of cocaine into Hong Kong, I would increase the “notional sentence after trial” by 18 months, taking it to 18 years and 9.6 months’ imprisonment.  

63.  Fourth, there is an aggravating factor in that D1 is a Form 8 Recognizance holder.  For that, I would increase the “notional sentence after trial” by 9 months, taking it to 19 years and 6.6 months’ imprisonment.

64.  Fifth, I have to consider the mitigating factor in favour of D1.  The guilty plea of D1 was indicated at a late stage.  In HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1, the discount for a late plea ranges between 25% and 20%, with 20% when the guilty plea is entered on the first day of trial.  Here, the guilty plea by D1 was indicated prior to the first day of trial.  For that, I am prepared to give her a 22% discount.

65.  Further, D1 has rendered useful assistance to the Customs.  Inter alia, D1 agreed to take part in a controlled delivery by handing Parcel A to D3 and D2, but it was fruitless as D3 and D2 had already left the scene on seeing D1 being arrested.  Also, after informing the prosecution that D1 would plead guilty and was willing to assist the prosecution at the trial of D2, a non-prejudicial statement was taken from D1 and served on the legal representatives of D2.

66.  Having regard to the totality of D1’s assistance, I am of the view that the appropriate discount for D1 is 8%.  In other words, the total discount for D1’s guilty plea and assistance should be 30%.  Accordingly, D1’s sentence is reduced to 13 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. 

67.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 13 years and 8 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of D1. 

68.  I turn finally to the sentence of D2. 

69.  Regarding the first step, I accept D2’s submissions that from the Summary of Facts, D2 was only involved in the trafficking of Parcel A, Parcel B, and Parcels 4, 7, 9, and 10 (ie  a total of 2,929.80 grammes of cocaine).  This position is not disputed by the prosecution.  On an arithmetical approach, 2,929.80 grammes of cocaine would attract a starting point of about 21 years and 7.6 months’ imprisonment.

70.  Second, concerning D2’s role and culpability, again, I do not accept D2’s submissions that his role was none other than that of a local courier.  D2 was instructed to collect Parcel B from the local post office and assisted in checking the status of Parcel A, 4, 7, 9, and 10.  The collection of these parcels of drugs at the post office were clearly the last step in their importation into Hong Kong. 

71.  Third, for the international element in importing 2,929.80 grammes of cocaine into Hong Kong, I would increase the “notional sentence after trial” by 24 months, taking it to 23 years and 7.6 months’ imprisonment.

72.  Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the “notional sentence after trial” for D2. 

73.  Fifth, I have to consider the mitigating factors in favour of D2.  Like D1, D2’s guilty plea was indicated at a late stage, albeit prior to the first day of the trial.  For that, I will give him a 22% discount.  Further, D2 has rendered assistance to the prosecution.  On the date of arrest, D2 had voluntarily participated in a CDO invited by the Customs Officers for the purpose of locating D3, Ah Moon.  D2 had followed the instructions by the Customs Officers and made phone calls with D3 to sneer D3 to the meeting point where she was successfully apprehended. 

74.  Further, on 16 September 2022, D2 made a non-prejudicial statement and provided information which confirmed D3’s participation in the conspiracy.  D2 was the first defendant in time to take the initiative to provide a non-prejudicial statement in this case.

75.  Like D1, I would give D2 a discount of 8% for his assistance.  The total discount for D2’s guilty plea and assistance should be 30%.  Accordingly, D2’s sentence is reduced to 16 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 

76.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 16 years and 6 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and in the circumstances of D2.