|
DCCC 1434/2024
[2025] HKDC 1328
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1434 OF 2024
------------------
------------------
| Before: |
Deputy District Judge Casewell |
| Present: |
Mr Chung Ming Shing, Jerry, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR |
|
Mr Law Tat Hung, Lawrence, instructed by LIMS Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the defendant |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug（販運危險藥物） |
-------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
-------------------------------------
1. The defendant, Mr Mak, had been stopped at the airport on 15 April 2024. He was arriving in Hong Kong from Bangkok, Thailand, carrying such check-in luggage and a bag. He was selected for Customs clearance and as a result of that Customs clearance the drugs that are the subject of the charge, it is a charge of trafficking in those drugs, were found, and what was found was a total of 6,906 grammes of cannabis in its herbal form. The defendant as a result of the finding of that in his luggage was arrested and he said that luggage had been given to him by a friend in Thailand and it was his job to take the luggage back. He did not have any means of contacting the person who had given him the luggage. In effect, the facts show the defendant to be a courier of the herbal cannabis from Thailand into Hong Kong and the herbal cannabis was found in a total of 14 packets. The street value of that cannabis is not high, it is HK$1,498,602.
2. Turning to the defendant’s background for sentence purposes, he is aged 66, he is a divorced man with daughters, has formerly worked as a construction worker but unfortunately due to accidents no longer working, has been dependent on CSSA payments. He has a total of eight previous convictions, none of them are similar and are not relevant to sentencing today. The defendant has admitted his involvement in this and, as I say, shows remorse.
3. As far as the calculation of sentence is concerned, it is largely governed by guideline sentencing. When approaching sentence I bear in mind the Court of Appeal case HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 which suggests a six-stage approach and also a more recent case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234. I bear in mind those cases. I shall not go into detail in the operation of those cases, I shall simply apply them to the existing facts.
4. First, it is necessary of course to determine the appropriate starting point for sentence. Here we are dealing with herbal cannabis. Again, there is a guideline sentence which can be found at HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329. For an amount of herbal cannabis over 6,000 grammes, the sentence should range between 36 to 48 months. He had a total of 6,906 grammes which suggests an enhancement of sentence beyond the 36 months to 39 months.
5. I did look at the defendant’s role in this matter. He is a courier, again it is perhaps one of the low-level involvement in the drug trafficking process. Are there any aggravating factors that exist here? Yes, the defendant’s role as a courier through an international airport is of course an aggravating factor. Given the nature of the drug and its value, I will take an additional sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment to add to the starting point of 39 months which gives me a starting point at this point of 42 months’ imprisonment.
6. Are there any mitigating factors to be determined? Yes, there is the defendant’s plea of guilty, he has pleaded guilty at the earliest possible opportunity, he has shown remorse, he is entitled to a full one-third discount from that figure.
7. That leads to final figure of 28 months’ imprisonment which shall be the sentence I will impose on this case, 28 months’ imprisonment.
|
(Casewell)
Deputy District Judge |
|