COURT: The defendant, Tang Yuk-san, was charged with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. He pleaded guilty before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.
Now the facts of the case admitted by the defendant.
The defendant was stopped and searched by the customs officers outside the lobby of Alto Residences in Tseung Kwan O as he acted suspiciously. Two large zip-lock bags were found inside the paper bag carried by the defendant. Suspected dangerous drugs were found inside the two zip-lock bags.
The defendant was arrested and cautioned. Under caution, the defendant admitted that the paper bag contained cocaine which belonged to him. He would distribute the dangerous drugs to an unknown person in Yau Tong and he would receive $6,000 for each delivery.
After a key was found inside the defendant’s pocket, the defendant gave an address, which was Room G, 15th Floor, Tower 6 of Alto Residences. Using the key found on the defendant, the customs officers gained entry to the flat.
Upon search, a bundle of zip-lock bags, two electronic scales, a pair of scissors and a sealing machine were found on a desk inside the bedroom. Under caution, the defendant admitted the items found belonged to him and were used for packaging cocaine.
The defendant’s phone was unlocked and from the WhatsApp account, the officers found the defendant communicated with another person. The defendant sent photographs of the suspected dangerous drugs similar to those seized by the officer to this person.
The defendant also sent a video of the suspected dangerous drugs being sealed. When the other person told the defendant to call him when he board the vehicle, the defendant responded by saying he would get on now.
Government chemist confirmed that one of the zip-lock bags contained 25 plastic bags containing a total of 600 grammes of a solid containing 479 grammes of cocaine. Whilst the other contained 23 plastic bags containing a total of 500 grammes of a solid containing 401 grammes of cocaine.
In other words, there was a total of 48 plastic bags containing a total of 1,100 grammes of a solid containing 880 grammes of cocaine.
The estimated street value of the seized cocaine was HK$946,600.
Background and Mitigation
The defendant was born in November 2002 and is now 20 years of age. He is not a first offender with two previous convictions of possession of dangerous drugs. He was fined $100 for one and put on 18 months’ probation for the other.
According to the antecedent statement, the defendant had parents and a younger brother. Although in the antecedent statement, it was stated that he resided with his father, it was corrected by defence counsel saying that he did not reside with his father. He was educated up to Form 1 level and he worked as a waiter, earning $7,000 a month prior to his arrest.
In mitigation, his counsel, Mr David Cheung, submitted that the defendant had a complicated and sad childhood. His father was a drug addict who had been abusing him and his mother physically. After his parents were separated, his mother became the sole breadwinner to take care of the defendant and his younger brother.
The defendant was unemployed at the time of the arrest. The defendant made frank admissions after arrest and pleaded guilty, saving court’s time. Mr Cheung submitted that the defendant’s role was perhaps equivalent to that of a courier. The defendant was instructed to deliver the dangerous drugs for a fee of $6,000.
With reference to the six-step approach in sentencing set down in the case of Herry Jane Yusuph, Mr Cheung submitted that the quantity of cocaine attracts a starting point between 20 to 23 years, citing the case of Abdallah.
The role of the defendant was that of a courier and submitted that the defendant should be placed at the lower end of the 20 to 23 years. Mr Cheung urged this Court not to treat the defendant’s previous convictions as aggravating factors and give the defendant the discount for his plea.
The defendant’s mother and uncle had written to this Court. They both described the defendant as a filial son, a person who was willing to help others. They both said that when the defendant reached puberty and being rebellious, his mother was busy making ends meet resulting in the lack of supervision on the defendant. They both asked this Court to give the defendant a chance and be lenient in the sentencing.
Consideration and reasons for sentence
For the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, a person convicted on indictment is liable to life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million. Now adopting the six-step approach in Herry Jane Yusuph:
(1) The quantity of cocaine involved was 880 grammes. That falls into the band of 600 to 1,200 grammes with a starting point between 20 to 23 years. That is according to the case of Abdallah.
(2) The defendant was involved in the packaging and delivery of the dangerous drugs. He is not merely a courier, though he is not in a managerial position either.
(3) Bearing in mind the role played by the defendant, I am of the view that a starting point of 21 years and 6 months is appropriate.
(4) Although the defendant had two previous drug-related convictions, bearing in mind the sentence imposed, those two convictions were not too serious. I will not enhance the starting point on account of the defendant’s previous convictions.
(5) The only mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is his timely plea.
(6) With the full one-third discount, the sentence would be one of 14 years and 4 months. And I am satisfied that this sentence is a fair and just one.
So the actual sentence for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the defendant is sentenced to 14 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.