COURT: The defendant was charged with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The drug involved was heroin and the amount of the substance was 80 grammes. The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts. This is another case where a defendant was stopped by the Customs officers at the Lo Wu checkpoint and drugs were found in his possession. I do not think it is necessary to go into the details of the Admitted Facts.
This particular defendant was co-operative and immediately made admissions to the investigating officer. He also agreed to participate in the controlled delivery operation but, unfortunately, no one came to collect the drugs.
The defendant has 24 previous convictions, 18 related to drugs but, mostly, they were possession offences. Nevertheless, in 2003, he was convicted of a trafficking offence for which he was given 16 months’ imprisonment.
The defendant is 59 years of age. He lived and worked between Shenzhen and Hong Kong. Defence counsel made a rather comprehensive mitigation on behalf of the defendant. Counsel had clarified the details in the antecedent statement. He informed the court of the defendant’s personal and addiction background. He also made submissions on the appropriate starting point, the aggravating factors and the appropriate discount for this defendant in view of his effort to assist. I do not think there is anything else he could have helpfully added.
Of course, the relevant authority for this type of case is the authority of Lau Tak Ming. Counsel submitted that for the amount involved in this case, the basic starting point should be 8½ years. Although, in my view, I believe it should be a bit higher, I am prepared to accept this suggestion. Counsel then asked the court not to increase the sentence, or not to increase too much because of the previous record and the so-called international element.
I cannot agree that the international element is not applicable in the case of the Hong Kong/mainland border, but I accept, however, it is a matter for the court to evaluate against the background of each individual defendant. In the present case, in view of the background of the defendant and the cross-border nature of the offence, I shall increase the starting point by 6 months, making the starting point 9 years.
For the plea-related discount, I have heard counsel quoting in detail about the defendant’s co-operation with the authorities. For that, the prosecution does not dispute that the defendant had rendered assistance. In these circumstances, although no one was finally apprehended, the court should recognise the defendant’s effort and his attempt to assist.
When reduced by one-third, the 9 years will be 6 years. In this case, I shall further reduce the sentence to 5½ years to reflect the element of his assistance.
I want to add this. I hope the defendant realises you are now already almost 60. I do hope that after this sentence, you would really try to stay on the lawful side.