COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance.
On 31 December 2021, customs officers in Kwai Chung intercepted an in-bound container originated from Canada for examination. Inside the container they found 99,043 grammes, that is approximately 99 kilogrammes, of herbal cannabis concealed in 100 boxes of cargo.
A controlled delivery operation took place.
In the afternoon on 13 January 2022, customs officer delivered, according to instruction, the cannabis in question to Panshang Industrial Building.
On arrival, the defendant appeared and gave further instruction for the cargo’s onward delivery. Eventually they stopped at Wang Yip Street West and unloaded the cannabis in question.
Later, another truck appeared. The defendant instructed the driver of that truck to upload the cannabis in question onto the second truck. They then drove to Long Ping Commercial Centre in Yuen Long where the defendant got off.
At 1605, customs officer intercepted and arrested the defendant near the car park entrance of the Long Ping Commercial Centre. Under caution, the defendant told customs officer that he knew the goods in question and that he was instructed to receive those goods and he knew the goods were cannabis.
The street value of the cannabis was estimated to be HK$18 million.
The defendant is 18, single, educated up to Form 2 level. He has one criminal record in 2022 for criminal damage and was sent to rehabilitation centre.
In view of the defendant’s age, the hearing was adjourned so that more personal backgrounds of the defendant could be obtained.
The background report indicated that the defendant came from a very broken family. He was then placed in foster home at very small. After returning to his mother, the defendant started to associate with undesirable peers. I do not intend to go into the details of the background report; the rest needs no further elaboration. I have been sitting in the juvenile court for some time. Those stories appear to be familiar to me.
Although the defendant told the probation officer that he did not know what he was receiving on that particular day, nevertheless he was determined to turn a new leaf. In any event, Mr Lee on behalf of the defendant today withdraws that assertion. The probation officer also noted a positive change in the defendant’s attitude during the remand period.
The amount of cannabis involved in this case could not be described as small. Mr Lee, counsel for the defendant, submitted that given the offence was committed in December 2021, where the Court of Appeal had not handed down its decision in the case of HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi, CACC 145 and 217/2019. The old guideline in Tuen Shui Ming [1995] 2 HKCLR 129 would still be applicable in the present case. To that submission, I agree entirely. What I am going to say to you, Mr Fok, is that if you commit the case today, you will face a very, very lengthy imprisonment term.
In HKSAR v Touray Edrisa and Another, CACC 124/2010, where the 1st applicant who was trafficking in 30 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis was given a starting point of 6 years.
The prosecution has also furnished to this court a number of authorities. I have read those authorities; in one case where a defendant who trafficked in just over 100 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis was given 9 years as the starting point.
In this particular case, the amount was 99 kilogrammes. Put it this way, the normal starting point would be one of 9 years. However, in light of the defendant’s age and the recommendation of the probation officer, a starting point of 8 years will be adopted. So in this case you are given, in my view, a very lenient sentence. All right, sometimes a sentence which is too lenient may not be a good thing because once the case is concluded, the department or the Secretary for Justice will immediately file an appeal.
But in this particular case I think I am entitled to pass a lenient sentence or, put it this way, I am entitled to adopt a starting point of 8 years. Without further evidence pointing to the contrary, the defendant in this case will also be treated as a simple courier. The other mitigation in your case is of course your earliest plea to the charge.
In conclusion, for the sole offence the defendant stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 64 months’ imprisonment.