HKSAR v. QUINTERO AGUIRRE STID ALEXANDER

HCCC 153/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 153 OF 2016

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: Defendant, on 24 March of this year, at the Eastern Magistrates’ Court, you pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134 of the Laws of Hong Kong.

The summary of facts upon which that charge was based was read to you in open court and admitted. You were therefore committed to this court for sentence today.

You have confirmed your plea of guilty and the accuracy of that summary of facts. The summary of facts and the charge allege that on 24 June 2015 at the Customs Arrival Hall of the Hong Kong International Airport, the defendant trafficked in 2.79 kilogrammes of a liquid containing 1.85 kilogrammes of cocaine.

The facts, insofar as they are relevant to my responsibilities today, indicate that about 11.45 am on that day, the defendant’s luggage was inspected was Customs officers at the Arrivals Hall of the Hong Kong International Airport. Inside his suitcase they found four foil packets which apparently contained a liquid. He was asked what was inside these and he replied, “Soap”. One of the foil packets was opened and inside was found another packet which itself contained a white liquid. The officers then asked the defendant what the white liquid was and he replied, “Cocaine”. That liquid was subsequently tested and, indeed, determined to be cocaine.

The defendant was arrested and detained. What was subsequently established that he had arrived in Hong Kong that morning from Sao Paulo in Brazil via Amsterdam. The defendant was later interviewed and told the Customs and Excise officers that he was, after his arrival in Hong Kong, to go to Kimberly Hotel where he would be in due course contacted.

He apparently agreed to assist with a controlled delivery or collection of those dangerous drugs and in cooperation with the Hong Kong authorities endeavoured to assist. Unfortunately, that controlled delivery did not take place but, nevertheless, it is accepted that the defendant did, in all of the circumstances, assist the authorities.

In a further interview, he indicated that the liquid cocaine that he had agreed to bring to Hong Kong he was to be paid an unspecified amount, his air ticket and accommodation was provided but in due course he refused to provide any further information as to those who were said to be involved.

The liquid was analysed by the Government Chemist. It was found to be 2.79 kilogrammes of a liquid which itself contained 1.85 kilogrammes of cocaine.

It was an agreed fact that this amount of cocaine had a retail value in Hong Kong in excess of $2,900,000.

From the antecedents statement admitted by the defendant and matters advanced in mitigation, I have learned that he is Colombian national. He is aged 40 years; he is single, and he was previously a truck driver in Colombia. He is unmarried and he has no children.

Mr Cahill has developed some of these matters in mitigation before me and indicated that his personal circumstances in Colombia made him a prime target for those who would engage persons to bring dangerous drugs to Hong Kong. Mr Cahill submits that his personal circumstances were such - and this in particular is with reference to the health of his mother and the dependency of his sister - put the defendant in a very vulnerable position.

Be that as it may, it is unfortunately the case in the trade in dangerous drugs that persons like the defendant are so vulnerable but nevertheless are so willing to engage in trafficking in drugs. I am told that on this occasion the defendant was to receive something in the order of $10,000 for his activities but has received nothing.

The defendant has pleaded guilty and for that he will unquestionably be entitled to a full one-third discount from the appropriate starting point. I am also satisfied that in all of the circumstances, he is entitled to credit for his attempt to assist the authorities at or about the time of his arrest. Those will be the matters I will take into account together with all of his personal circumstances when determining the appropriate sentence.

The Court of Appeal guidelines for sentencing for trafficking in cocaine, and in particular trafficking in cocaine where the defendant concerned has brought the drugs into Hong Kong, are clear and in the main part unambiguous. In particular, I refer to R v Lau Tak Ming [1992] HKLR 370; AG v Neil Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342; and HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas [2009] 2 HKLRD.

In the present circumstances, I must first determine the appropriate starting point for sentence. Bearing in mind the parameters for sentencing in excess of the previous guidelines, the Court of Appeal in Abdallah has indicated that for amounts of dangerous drugs - and in that case the dangerous drug was heroin, but it is accepted those observations apply with equal force to cocaine - the range for sentence for amounts between 1,200 to 4,000 grammes should be 23 to 26 years.

The amount of 1,850 grammes is in excess of the minimum of 1,200. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, I believe that an appropriate starting point of 23 years and 6 months prior to any enhancement for aggravating factors and prior to any discount for his plea of guilty and other factors is appropriate.

To that, in line with the recommendation of the Court of Appeal in Abdallah, I will add a period of 2 years to account for the international component that is to bring those drugs into Hong Kong. That would result in an overall starting point for sentence after trial of 25 years and 6 months.

A full one-third discount from that would result in a sentence of 17 years.

Taking into account all of the other matters that I have indicated, including the assistance provided by the defendant, I am satisfied that a sentence of 16 years is appropriate in all of the circumstances. This will, indeed, accommodate the personal circumstances of the defendant and the assistance to the authorities insofar as he was able to.

Therefore the sentence which I will impose will be one of 16 years.