The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The defendant was stopped at the arrival hall of the international airport. Inside a hand carry bag, ‘Ice’ was found concealed. There were 26 packets containing 2,979.9 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2,920.5 grammes of ‘Ice’.
Under caution, the defendant admitted that he had been asked to bring the dangerous drug to Hong Kong for a reward of $15,000. In a subsequent interview, he said a man called Bingo arranged the flight and hotel accommodation in Thailand and gave him $3,000 as travelling allowance. Bingo told him someone in Thailand would pass him a suitcase in which dangerous drug was concealed. He also told him to put in some daily necessities as cover-up. Bingo also told him that someone would pick him up after he passed the customs when he returned to Hong Kong.
I was told that the defendant is single, now 25 years of age. His parents divorced when he was studying Primary 3. He had received education up to Form 3 and had worked as a hairstylist and part-time construction worker. At the time of the offence, he had been out of employment for about six months.
The defendant has one previous record. In 2013, for a charge of possession of dangerous drug, he was fined and put on probation.
Learned counsel for the defence, Mr Richard Donald, urged the court to take into account that the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and that he is now remorseful. He told the court that the defendant became unemployed after he had injured his shoulder and needed to undergo a surgery to repair the damage. In desperate financial situation, the defendant succumbed to the temptation of easy money. He also informed the court that the defendant is now involved in religion. He also urged the court to take into account the relatively young age of the defendant.
The defence also produced a letter from the defendant himself in which he expressed remorse and decided to turn over a new leaf. Also produced are letters from the employer, colleagues and classmates of the defendant as well as from a pastor. I have had regard to what are said in these letters.
In accordance with the case of HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437, the tariff for trafficking in this quantity of ‘Ice’ is 23 to 26 years. I see no reason to depart from the tariff. I accept that the role of the defendant was low in the trafficking hierarchy.
In all the circumstances for this quantity of ‘Ice’, I am of the view that a starting point of around 24 years and 10 months is appropriate. There was an international element in this case and for this aggravating feature, I enhance the starting point by around 24 months.
Having considered the whole of the circumstances and having regard to the recent Court of Appeal case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph, CACC 93/2019, I adopt a notional sentence after trial of 26 years and 10 months.
The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate and for this he is entitled to a one-third discount. There is information before the court which persuades me to give the defendant a further discount of 4 months.
Having considered the whole circumstances, including the mitigation put forward on the defendant’s behalf, I am of the view that this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to.
Defendant, please stand up. For the reasons I mentioned, I sentence you to an immediate imprisonment term of 17½ years.