COURT: You have confirmed your guilty plea to the charge that you are facing and your admission of the facts, so you are convicted as charged. Now, you face one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. The particulars of the charge is that on 28 July 2022 at Landmark North, No. 39 Lung Sang Avenue, Sheung Shui, New Territories, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 499 grammes of a solid containing 403 grammes of cocaine.
The facts that you have admitted are these. On the morning of 28 July 2022, anti-drug patrol was conducted in Sheung Shui targeting a private car of registration number XM9225. At 4.03 pm that day, the vehicle was seen driven into the car park of the mall. The defendant alighted from the vehicle’s driver seat and was empty-handed. Defendant walked through the lift lobby of the B2 floor and took the lift upstairs to the L3 Floor. The defendant walked towards the lockers on the L3 Floor lift lobby. Around a minute later, the defendant returned to L3 Floor lift lobby with a loaded plastic bag. As the defendant walked out of the lift, he was intercepted.
Upon search the defendant’s plastic bag, there were a bunch of packaged snacks, one of which was a chocolate cake box containing a resealable plastic bag bearing marker pen handwriting “541.93” that contained a piece of white brick-like object, E1, wrapped in plastic wrap bearing marker pen handwriting “266.53”. And another piece of white brick-like object, E2, wrapped in plastic wrap bearing marker pen handwriting “267.52”.
Government chemist subsequently confirmed that E1 was 248 grammes of a solid in the form of a block containing 197 grammes of cocaine, while E2 was 251 grammes of a solid containing in the form of a block containing 206 grammes of cocaine. E1 and E2 were a total of 499 grammes of a solid containing 403 grammes of cocaine.
The total estimated street value of the cocaine was HK$413,075 or HK$671,398, depending of if they were sold as powder cocaine or crack cocaine.
Under caution at the scene, the defendant said that the two bricks of cocaine that were placed inside the chocolate box were taken by him for his own self-consumption. Under a further caution, the defendant said he worked three days a week in a construction site. His daily wage was between $600 and $700.
Defendant now accepts and admits that at the material time, he was in possession of E1 and 2 for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. He committed the present offence whilst on police bail.
Mitigation
Defendant is 34 years old, single. He was born in Guangxi, mainland. He came to Hong Kong with his family when he was 8 years old. He received education up to Secondary 1 and can only read and write in very simple Chinese. The defendant’s father is a construction worker. The mother has always been the housewife. Their health has not been good in recent years. The defendant’s mother had a stroke shortly before his arrest in 2022. He has one elder sister and one elder brother, both are school teachers and have received tertiary education.
Prior to his arrest on 20 July 2022, the defendant worked as a construction worker. Prior to COVID, he could earn about $20,000 per month, sometimes $28,000 per month. He would give $10,000 to his mother. The defendant claimed he mixed with the wrong peers in construction sites and fell prey to drug addiction.
He has a number of criminal records which spanned from 2008 to 2023. He committed the present offence whilst on bail of the offence for which he was sentenced in 2023. The defendant is no stranger to drug offences. Prior to his arrest, he has six previous convictions of possession of dangerous drugs and one previous conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs for which he was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment.
For the purpose of sentencing, I will not place weight on his conviction in 2023 for the possession of dangerous drugs.
Counsel for the defendant, Ms Yip, submits that the defendant committed the present offence because he was very worried about his mother, where bad peers persuaded him to take up delivery of the subject drugs for quick cash so he could buy some extra expensive medication for his mother. Counsel submits that the defendant is genuinely remorseful and deeply embarrassed for his offence. He asked for leniency and wishes to reunite with his family.
For many years, the community of Hong Kong has taken a severe view of drug trafficking. No doubt, the drug has terrible consequences on the individual. There are also serious consequences for the community. The sentencing policy underlying is to impose deterrent sentences. The courts have provided sentencing guidelines for trafficking in cocaine.
In approaching the sentence for the present offence, I adopt the six-step approach as propounded in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph. The guidelines for trafficking in cocaine are laid down in Lau Tak Ming and Pedro Nel Rojas. The quantity of cocaine involved fall within the band of 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment. For the present offence, I adopt 15 years’ imprisonment as the starting point.
I accept that the defendant is a mere courier. As rightly pointed out by counsel, there are aggravating factors. Firstly, the defendant committed the present offence whilst on bail of an offence of possession of dangerous drugs. The defendant’s first drug related conviction took place in 2011. He was sentenced to the drug addiction treatment centre, DATC. In 2015, he was convicted of one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs and one count of possession of dangerous drugs. The total sentence he received was 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. In 2019, the defendant was convicted for possession of dangerous drugs. In 2021, he was convicted and sentenced for two sets of offences, including drug related offences and breach of suspended sentence. He was then released in September 2021 and committed the offence of possession of dangerous drugs on 26 May 2022, namely 8 months after his release.
In two months’ time, namely, on 28 July 2022, the defendant committed the present offence. In view of the defendant’s past record and he committed the present offence whilst on bail, whilst I am not minded to find that the defendant is a persistent offender, I am of the view that some enhancement of sentence is justified. In the circumstances, I will enhance the defendant’s sentence for 6 months.
I have considered the mitigation, the defendant prays in aid of the mother’s health issue. However, it has long been recognised that family circumstances carry no or minimal weight in mitigation. As a result, I will adopt a starting point of 15 years and 6 months’ imprisonment which should be reduced by one-third for his timely plea.
You are sentenced to 10 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.