CRIMINAL CASE NO. 477 OF 2011
COURT: I am going to announce sentence, the defendant may stay seated.
This defendant pleaded guilty at committal on 23 December 2011 to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The dangerous drug was 0.96 kilogrammes of a powder containing 0.86 kilogrammes of cocaine.
Today the defendant confirmed his plea of guilty and confirmed also the facts that he admitted at the committal. Those facts show that the defendant was stopped by Customs & Excise at the Lo Wu Border Control Point as he arrived from the Mainland. He was searched and four transparent plastic bags containing suspected dangerous drugs were found underneath a commerbund around the accused’s waist.
The accused was arrested and cautioned but said he had no idea what the substance was. Later in a video-recorded interview the accused said that he had gone to the Mainland and had received a telephone call from a stranger who asked him to start working at $3,000 a time. The “work” referred to was carrying goods back to Hong Kong.
Subsequently, he went to a restaurant where a man handed him a black plastic bag and a commerbund. He was told how to put the stuff from the black bag into the commerbund which he was to wear. He did as instructed and went to the Lo Wu Control Point but was intercepted before he could get to Tai Wo where he was to pass on the dangerous drugs to somebody else.
The accused admits and accepts that he was trafficking in the seized dangerous drugs. After analysis by the Government Chemist the quantity and nature of the drug was confirmed as it appears on the particulars of the charge. The estimated retail value of the drugs at the time of seizure was HK$982,080.
The antecedents statement shows the defendant was born in Hong Kong and is aged 31 years. He has no criminal record. After completing his secondary school education to Form 5 in 1996, he worked at various jobs as a computer technician. In mid 2005 he worked for the French Ministry of Defence in the Foreign Legion. In 2008 he worked as a security guard in Hong Kong and between 2009 and early 2011 he worked taking parallel goods from Sheung Shui to Lo Wu, earning about $10,000 a month. He stopped that work in early 2011 and was not working at the time of his arrest.
The defendant is single. He lived with his parents prior to this offence. He was successfully employed by the Ministry of Defence in France as a member of the Foreign Legion. There is some dispute as to whether he was in desertion at the time he left the Foreign Legion or whether, as the defendant states, he was medically discharged. Quite clearly the defendant showed interest in civic and state assistance. He also puts before the Court his lengthy record as a blood donor in Hong Kong and his application to join the Hong Kong Auxiliary Medical Services.
Counsel advises the court that the defendant is not in the usual run of offenders and I am prepared to accept that given the basis of his previous history of work. He has always been in employment and that continued right up until the time almost before his arrest.
A letter from the defendant himself was placed before the Court in which he expresses his regret for this offence, acknowledges his wrongdoing and says that he was driven by greed as a result of financial difficulties into committing this offence. He is very aware of the impact of this offence on his family in particular and says that he wants to make the most of his time in custody so that when he leaves custody he can get a job in the computing field and support his parents.
Cocaine is sentenced on the same basis as heroin and in this case the guidelines for quantities in excess of 600 grammes as set out in Abdallah apply. The narcotic quantity of 0.86 grammes comes within the band of 600 to 1,200 grammes, and the sentencing range for that quantity is 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment.
There is also in this case an importation element which requires an enhancement of sentence. But as the quantity of narcotic is below 1 kilogramme the enhancement is not required to be at the minimum of 2 years’ imprisonment in addition to the guideline sentence.
In this case, taking all matters into account, I adopt a starting point of 20 years and enhance that by 1 year making a total sentence of 21 years before discount is considered.
The only real mitigation in this case is the plea of guilty entered by the defendant for which he is entitled to the full one-third discount.
Accordingly I take a starting point in total of 21 years. I discount that by one-third and sentence the defendant to 14 years’ imprisonment.