HKSAR v. HASAN MILON

HCCC 252/2021

[2023] HKCFI 1400

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 252 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  The defendant was found guilty after trial of trafficking in 1,512g of Cocaine contrary to s4(1)(a)  & (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance Cap 134.

2.  The defendant was arrested on 9 July 2020, after a controlled delivery operation carried out by Customs & Excise. That same day, they had discovered cocaine secreted within a consignment of 20 boxes of breakfast cereal shipped from Brazil by air and examined at the Cathay Pacific Air Cargo Terminal. That consignment was ultimately delivered to a storage facility in Hung Hom. It was the defendant who met the two undercover officers and purported to receive the goods on behalf of Global Fine Foods Ltd. On arrest and caution, he had said that a stranger had asked him to receive the goods for a reward of $600 dollars and as he needed the money, he had agreed to do so but did not know that the boxes contained dangerous drugs. Later, in his VRI, the defendant stated that he had been approached by someone he knew earlier that day, another Form 8 holder, and he had offered him part time work. He maintained in interview that he did not know what was in the boxes. The jury disbelieved him.

3.  Miss Herbert submits that the defendant is a man of previous good character. He is a national of Bangladesh and a claimant under the UNHCR.  He is now 38 years of age and married with one daughter. As his wife is Indonesian, he will suffer the difficulty of having little or no face to face contact with his wife and child for some time to come as she has now returned to Indonesia. The remainder of the defendant’s family live in Bangladesh. They include his son, who is 11 years old, from his first marriage and his parents, who will also not be able to visit him in prison.

4.  The sentencing guideline for trafficking in large amounts of dangerous drugs including Cocaine, is HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437. The guideline starting point after trial for trafficking between 1,200 to 4,000 grammes of cocaine is between 23 to 26 years. For 1,512g the starting point should be 23 years 4 months. Although the drugs were imported from Brazil, there was no evidence to indicate that the defendant played any part at all in the greater trafficking operation and I will not therefore enhance that starting point by reason of the aggravating feature that this case involved the international importation of those drugs; HKSAR v Ali Qasim [2020] HKCA 56; HKSAR v S K Wasim [2020] 2 HKLRD 1139.  Nor will I deviate from the usual starting point having considered all of the principles set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph CACC 93/2019; [2020] HKCA 974; [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. The prosecution evidence was limited to receipt of the goods in the storage facility and placing them within room 3045, without more. The totality of his involvement on the evidence was limited to one day. There was no evidence to suggest his involvement was greater than that. He therefore stands in the shoes of a courier as he had no other practical or supervisory role over the goods. He was to return the key to room 3045 immediately after the boxes were placed within it. His pay of $600 was for work upon that day alone. However, I am also bound to consider his status within HKSAR. He is a Form 8 holder and as such he is our guest. He has committed a very serious crime which will impact upon the citizens of Hong Kong. Nevertheless, he already faces a substantial sentence for limited involvement. Considering all the circumstances of this case and the defendant’s cooperation throughout, in the exercise of my discretion, the sentence 23 years 4 months will be enhanced by just one year.

5.  The defendant chose to have a trial in which he was found unanimously guilty. There is therefore no discount available to him, nor is there any mitigation, which can reduce the sentence I must pass. He must go to prison for 24 years 4 months. 

6.  I wish to thank both Counsel for their efficiency and professionalism in trial. The manner in which this trial was run was commendable.