COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed before me for sentence.
In sentencing, I have taken into consideration the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular, the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, background of the defendant, and mitigation put forward on his behalf. I also have had regard to cases of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186, which sets out principles of sentencing consideration.
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
Police officers stopped the car driven by the defendant. Upon search of the car, a bag containing 348 grammes of a mixture containing 289 grammes of heroin hydrochloride was found on the front passenger seat. The defendant was arrested. Under caution, the defendant said an unknown man gave him the item to deliver and he did not know the content of the item.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant gave details of the transaction and maintained that he did not know the content of the item.
I was told that the defendant is now 22 years of age. He received education up to Secondary 6 and prior to the arrest had been working as a part-time construction worker. He did not have any criminal conviction record before.
In mitigation, learned counsel for the defence, Mr Joseph Lee, urged the court to take into account that the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and was remorseful.
As regards to the offence, Mr Lee told the court that the defendant committed the offence since he succumbed to financial temptation. He urged the court to sentence the defendant on the basis that he was a courier.
He also told the court that the defendant exceled himself in football. He had been playing for top local clubs in their youth teams and had represented Hong Kong in five-a-side football at the Under 16, Under 18 and Under 20 tournaments.
The defence produced a letter written by the defendant himself. In his letter, the defendant expressed remorse. He said he is determined to turn a new leaf and wish he can pursue his football career after serving the sentence.
The parents of the defendant are in court to support him.
The narcotic content of the dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was 289 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.
The Court of Appeal suggested in the case of R v Lau Tak Ming [1992] HKLRD 370, that a sentence of 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment should be considered for trafficking in heroin
if the narcotic content is between 200 to 400 grammes. In all the circumstances, I do not find there are good grounds to depart from the tariff. I accept the submission of Mr Lee as to the role performed by the defendant. The defendant was of the age of 20 years when he committed the offence. He was young but not to the extent that it would affect the sentence to be imposed.
In all the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 13 years and 4 months.
The defendant pleaded guilty as soon as the matter was dealt with by a magistrate and it is for this reason entitled to a one-third discount. Having considered the whole of the relevant circumstances, including the sentencing approach as laid down in the cases I mentioned earlier, what counsel
said on behalf of the defendant, and that this is the first conviction of the defendant, in my judgment this is the extent of the discount the defendant is entitled to.
For the abovesaid reasons, I sentence you to an immediate imprisonment term of 8 years 10 months.