COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug involving 704 grammes of a mixture containing 610 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, which I will simply refer to as “heroin”, and one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug involving:
(i) 5,279 grammes of a mixture containing 4,512 grammes of heroin; and
(ii) 11 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 11 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, which I will simply refer to as “Ice”.
On 13 January 2022, customs officers intercepted the defendant at the cargo lift entrance of Billion Plaza II, 10 Cheung Yue Street, Cheung Sha Wan. The defendant was carrying a recycle bag at the time, and inside the bag and hidden in a pack of dog food were two slabs of drugs, in the form of two blocks, containing a total of 704 grammes of a mixture containing 610 grammes of heroin. The defendant also had in his possession, inter alia, three mobile phones, three key cards, and cash of $15,692.
Upon arrest, the defendant said that he was asked by his friend to bring the goods for delivery, and he also told the officers that the goods were obtained from a unit on the 17th Floor of the same building.
Customs officers then escorted the defendant to Flat A of the 17th Floor, which I will simply refer to as “the flat”. The officers entered Room 17 inside the flat, and inside that room, the following items inter alia were found:
(i) inside the drawer of a cabinet, one opened packet containing 353 grammes of a mixture, in the form of one block, containing 303 grammes of heroin;
(ii) inside an unlocked suitcase, four blocks of drugs containing a total of 1,408 grammes of a mixture containing 1,270 grammes of heroin; and
(iii) inside a locked suitcase, opened with a password
provided by the defendant, 10 blocks of drugs containing a total of 3,518 grammes of a mixture containing 3,002 grammes of heroin, and another 11 packet containing 11 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’.
Under caution, the defendant said he had been instructed to deliver the goods found in that room to a van.
The combined street value of the seized heroin was $6,515,487 for heroin and $6,435,000 for the seized ‘Ice’.
The Defendant’s Background and Mitigation
The defendant is now 30 years old. He is married with a 6-year-old son. He was a decoration worker, and a part-time waiter. The defendant was brought up by his aunt’s family. Since this offence, his young son is also being cared for by the aunt’s family.
I have read many letters written to this court by the defendant’s aunts and uncles, cousins, friends, and a former employer. The defendant is viewed by his family and friends as a kind person who is always willing to help others. I note in particular that the defendant regularly acted as a volunteer worker on activities organised by charitable organisations for the elderly, for example, the Tsuen Wan Elderly Welfare Association.
This morning, I have also read the defendant’s own letter and some evidence showing that the defendant have adopted the Christian faith during his time in custody.
The present offences were committed at a time when the defendant’s income was unstable, and defendant was in need of money. I accept that the defendant is truly remorseful for his conduct.
The defendant has no previous criminal convictions.
Sentencing Considerations
The sentencing approach in trafficking cases is set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150. I therefore follow the six-step sentencing approach set out in Yusuph.
The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band or bracket applicable to the quantity of drug concerned.
For trafficking in ‘Ice’ that amounts to 600 grammes and over, the sentencing tariffs would be the same as prescribed for heroin. For trafficking in over 15 kilogrammes of heroin, the starting point to be adopted is at the sentencer’s discretion - see HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 at paragraph 41.
In HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75, it was held that in cases where different quantities of dangerous drugs are found in the accused’s possession on the same day but at different locations, the sentencing court should impose sentences on both offences for the total narcotic content, and then make the sentences concurrent with one another. I will follow that approach for the two counts in the present case.
In the case of trafficking in multiple drugs, according to HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin and Another [2004] 3 HKC 367, the court will first need to consider whether the “individual approach” or the “combined approach” should be used. For the purposes of this case, I will adopt the combined approach. Since the same sentencing tariffs are applicable to the quantity of heroin and ‘Ice’ in the present case, I will combine the weight of all the drugs together and adopt the same starting point for both Counts 1 and 2.
The combined narcotic weight of the drugs covered by both counts come to 16,122 grammes. Given that the total weight is relatively close to the 30 years’ imprisonment provided for trafficking in 15,000 grammes, I will adopt 30 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for both counts.
On the evidence, there is nothing to suggest that the defendant had any further role beyond the culpability of an ordinary courier. Therefore, I assess his culpability on that basis. However, the amount of either drug in the present case, heroin or ‘Ice’, even if assessed on each of its own, is enormous. In respect of the presence of a cocktail of drugs, this allows it to cater for the wider market. I will therefore enhance the starting point by 3 months.
The main mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s guilty plea. He is entitled to a one-third discount off the starting point which brings the sentence down to 20 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
I accept that the defendant was a person of positive good character, having volunteered regularly to help charities in activities organised for the elderly. I also accept that, according to the Summary of Facts, it was the defendant who volunteered the address of the flat to the customs officers, at which the majority of the drugs were located. It was also the defendant who provided the password to the customs officers for them to enter the flat.
This morning, the prosecution has fairly confirmed to this court that the customs officers were not aware of the flat prior to the defendant volunteering that information. So for both his positive good character and his assistance to the customs officers, I will further reduce the defendant’s sentence by 6 months.
The defendant’s sentence therefore comes to 19 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for each of Counts 1 and 2. The sentences on both counts will be served concurrently.
Defendant, I sentence you to 19 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.