HKSAR v. MCDERMOUTH BASSONIA COLLISTER

HCCC 281/2025

[2025] HKCFI 6215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 281 OF 2025

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant, Mcdermouth Bassonia Collister, pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug in the court below. The offence took place on 20 April 2024 and it concerned 453 grammes of cocaine. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted the Summary of Facts dated 12 August 2025. He confirmed his guilty plea and admission of the facts before me today.

The facts

On 20 April 2024, the defendant arrived in Hong Kong from Montego Bay, Jamaica via Frankfurt, Germany and Dubai, UAE. He was intercepted by customs officers for customs clearance at the Arrival Hall B of the Hong Kong International Airport. Customs officers searched and questioned the defendant. As the officers suspected the defendant had concealment of drugs inside his body, the defendant was escorted to North Lantau Hospital for medical check-up. The defendant discharged 20 pellets of suspected cocaine from his body when he went to the toilet.

The defendant was arrested. Under caution in English, he stated that he had swallowed 30 pellets in Jamaica with a reward of JM$300,000, equivalent to about HK$15,000. He claimed that he had no knowledge of the substance of the pellets and how to handle the pellets.

The defendant was transferred to the custodial ward of Queen Elizabeth Hospital. A total of 40 pellets containing cocaine were discharged by the defendant during his four-day detention in Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

On 21 April 2024, the defendant was interviewed. Under caution, he refused to answer questions in relation to the case.

The narcotic content of the substance contained in the 60 pellets discharged by the defendant was confirmed by the Government Chemist to be a total of 60 packets consisting of plastic wrappings containing 582 grammes of a solid containing 453 grammes of cocaine.

The estimated street value of the cocaine seized is $437,644 in powder form or HK$741,468 in crack form.

The defendant now admits that at all material times, he knowingly possessed all subject dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Antecedents

The defendant is a Jamaican national. He is now aged 37. He has a clear criminal record in Hong Kong.

Mitigation

Mr Hingorani submits in mitigation that applying the six‑step sentencing approach of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph and the tariff case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3), the 453 grammes of cocaine in the present case falls within the range of 200 grammes to 500 grammes attracting 12 to 19 years’ imprisonment. Arithmetically 453 grammes of cocaine would attract 15 years and 4 months.

For the role and culpability of the defendant, Mr Hingorani submits that the defendant was a mule. He thought he was trafficking in cannabis for a monetary reward of US$9,000.

(Discussion re clarification)

The defendant chose not to give evidence to support his claim of ignorance of the true nature of the 60 pellets.

Mr Hingorani submits that there are no circumstances justifying the need to take the defendant outside the band of sentence. Mr Hingorani submits that for the international element which aggravates the seriousness of the offence, an enhancement of a period not in excess of 12 months is appropriate.

Mr Hingorani accepts the only valid mitigating factor is the guilty plea timely entered by the defendant. Mr Hingorani submits that the defendant was in destitution at the time and he committed the offence because of economical difficulties.

Consideration

I have considered the nature and quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, the facts of the case, the background of the defendant and all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Hingorani and the handwritten mitigation written by the defendant.

I have considered the following sentencing authorities placed before me, tariff: HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138; sentencing approach for TDD, HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290; HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

This case concerns 453 grammes of cocaine. Applying the tariff set down in Huang Ruifang, this case falls within the guideline band of 200 to 500 grammes, that is 12 to 16 years.

I assess the role and culpability of the defendant. I do not accept the defendant’s claim that he believed what he trafficked into Hong Kong was cannabis. There is no credible evidence to substantiate the defendant’s claim.

The defendant swallowed 60 pellets of cocaine in Jamaica and knowingly brought into Hong Kong for a monetary reward. There was clearly an international element in the present case. The cocaine that the defendant brought into Hong Kong, if successfully found its way into the local drug market, would increase the supply of cocaine and cause substantial harm to the community.

For the international element, the Court of Appeal reiterated in Lee Ming Ho, that the international element should now generally be considered as a factor when assessing the role and culpability of the offender in order to identify the appropriate starting point for sentence.

In my judgment, the defendant played an important role and his culpability was high in the instant case.

Under the third step in Herry Jane Yusuph, I have to identify where in the band of 12 to 16 years the defendant’s case came. The Court of Appeal in Herry Jane Yusuph recognises it might be necessary for the sentencing court to go outside the band, whether above or below, given the circumstances of the case and the role of the defendant.

In the present case, given the 453 grammes of cocaine and the role and culpability of the defendant as discussed, it is necessary to go beyond the 16 years ceiling of the band. I adopt 16 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, that is 195 months, as the notional sentence after trial.

The defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for his timely guilty plea. There is no other valid mitigating factor in this case.

I have considered the matters raised by the defendant in his mitigation letter. I decline to give any additional reduction for the defendant’s promise to assist Father Wotherspoon in his campaign to combat international drug trafficking. In my judgment, a sentence of 10 years and 10 months’ imprisonment is fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 10 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, that is 130 months.