COURT: Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug contrary to section 4(1(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
On 9 August, shortly before midnight, you were apprehended by Customs officers on the ground floor of Li Tak Street, Tai Kok Tsui, near the Tsin Shui Building. Upon search, no contraband was found in your possession. Upon inquiry and upon being questioned, you stated that you had come down from an upper floor of the building and that there was cocaine there at.
You then escorted the officers to the flat on the 1st floor and they used a key retrieved from you to enter the premises. Upon search of the premises, a very large amount of cocaine was found, which was that as stated in the charge, a total of 2,659.87 grammes of powder containing 2,267.93 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride and 1,458.99 grammes of solid and 0.42 grammes of powder containing 1,233.62 grammes of cocaine.
You were arrested and cautioned and you admitted knowledge of the cocaine and you said you intended to deliver it to someone. 14 mobile phones were also recovered at the scene. You then further revealed to the Customs officers that you resided at Sheung Hei House in Tai Kok Tsui.
Upon being brought to your residence, a further amount of cocaine was found there, that was 233.85 grammes of solid and 0.01 grammes of powder containing 190.72 grammes of cocaine and 5.1 grammes of powder containing 3.99 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride, the subject matter of charge 2. You were cautioned and you replied that the cocaine was yours and that the drugs had been returned by someone and you had concealed them there.
In a video recorded interview you said you had been recruited by a person called Chong Chor-ho, also known as Ah Chong to assist in packing the cocaine. The drugs seized at the premises at Tsin Shui Building were brought there by Ah Chong and that Ah Chong was the person who cooked the cocaine and provided the paraphernalia for packing at the premises. You would pack the cocaine and put 24 grammes into each ziplock bag.
Ah Chong had provided you with money to pay the rent of the premises and you were given $700 as a daily wage and you would undertake the drug delivery. Most of the mobile phones seized at the premisesbelonged to Ah Chong, except for two which were yours. The street value of the drugs in this case was estimated to be about $4,206,716.96.
Your counsel, Mr Henry Ma, has mitigated fully and thoroughly on your behalf. You are 26 years of age and are of clear record. You are married and have a young daughter born in November 2012. I am informed that the reason you committed this offence was because you had been unemployed for almost a year and in view of the birth of your daughter, you wanted to earn more money for the family, therefore your friends introduced you to trafficking in drugs.
Mr Ma has informed me that you have tried your very best to cooperate with the Customs officer by giving a non‑prejudicial statement. As revealed in your record of interview, you provided information about this Mr Chong and his wife and I am informed by the prosecution that Mr Chong has since left the Territory and he has been put on the watch list. As regards to the wife, inquiries were made from her, however she was released after legal advice.
Mr Ma has urged the court to give you credit for your attempted assistance to the authorities. He referred me to the case of HKSAR v Jardin Rodela Maningas CACC 278 of 2011 where in that case the accused gave some assistance but there was no apprehension of persons, and yet the court gave her a discount. That case can be distinguished from the present case in that the accused there was actually engaged in a controlled delivery of the drugs. It was her action and her taking part in assisting in attempting to secure the apprehension of the person or persons in Hong Kong to whom drugs were to be delivered.
The court there held it is important, as a matter of principle, to engage arrested persons to assist in this way. In this way being the controlled delivery, and in this case, there was no empty offer of assistance but a practical engagement in the exercise, the failure of which did not in any way lie at the door of the applicant.
It has long been recognised in this jurisdiction that not to accord credit for information which, in the event bears no fruit. In this case, although you have provided information as best you can, it has borne no fruit up. It was stated in HKSAR v W, CACC 10 of 2011 that when information provided, in fact, leads nowhere, the system opens itself to abuse if credit is given merely for the provision of detailed and specific information which, in the event, bears no fruit. And fruit in such a case, is not produced by mere identification without the assistance of the accused in actually securing directly or indirectly the prosecution and conviction of the person concerned. This must be the general approach.
I accept, defendant, that you have tried to assist the investigation authorities but I am unable to afford you any discount for your assistance as it has not directly or indirectly secured the prosecution and conviction of the person concerned.
The strongest mitigating factor in your case is your plea of guilty. Through your plea you will, of course, be given the usual one-third discount. I accept, in this case, however that a further discount should be afforded to you, based on the information which you yourself volunteered and gave to the Customs Department Officers. The prosecution accept that.
Upon your interception, no contraband was found upon you. As a result of the information you provided to the Customs officer, the drugs in both charges were uncovered. In light of this cooperation, I will give you a further discount and will give you a full 40 per cent discount from the starting point.
Defendant, the total amount of drugs in this case, that is, in charges 1 and 2, was the amount of 3,696.26 grammes of cocaine. I will therefore take the total amount as a starting point for those two charges at 25 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty and also for your further cooperation to the Customs officer and allowing a 40 per cent discount that term shall be reduced to 15 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. That will be the total term of imprisonment you shall serve. I shall now give you the individual sentences for each charge.
On charge 1, I would have taken a starting point of 25 years’ imprisonment. Giving you the 40 per cent discount, that term shall be reduced to 15 years’ imprisonment.
On charge 2, the starting point would have been 11 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Giving you the full 40 per cent discount, that term would be reduced to 4 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.
So as to arrive at the total sentence of 15 years and 3 months, I order that 3 months of charge 2 is to run consecutive to that of charge 1 and the remaining term is to run concurrent, making a total term of imprisonment of 15 years and 3 months.
It goes without saying, defendant, that you are, of course, convicted of the two charges on your own plea and admission of the facts.