|
HCCC 73/2017
[2018] HKCFI 1083
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 73 OF 2017
-----------------
------------------
| Before: |
Hon Andrew Chan J |
| Date: |
14 February 2018 at 3.06 pm |
| Present: |
Mr John McNamara, on fiat, for HKSAR |
|
Mr James McGowan, instructed by Massie & Clement, for the accused |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) |
----------------------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
----------------------------------------------
COURT:
The defendant was convicted by jury of one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
The defendant was intercepted by customs officers for baggage examination on his arrival at the Hong Kong International Airport on 13 May 2016. He travelled from Delhi, India via Dubai to Hong Kong. Inside his backpack, customs officer found four packets of chocolates. On closer examination, 5.823 kilogrammes of a solid containing 4.550 kilogrammes of cocaine was found.
The street value was estimated to be in the region of HK$6.179 million.
Evidence indicated that the defendant was not travelling alone in this delivery. Travelled with him was another Indian, Mr Taneja. For reasons unknown and in my view no doubt a grave mistake, Mr Taneja was not charged for any offence. Be that as it may, the defendant was found by the jury to be a knowing party in this delivery. He acted as a courier for one international drug syndicate.
I accept from Mr McGowan that the defendant did render assistance to the Customs and Excise Department after his arrest for a controlled delivery. The defendant pointed out Mr Taneja and Mr Singh to the customs officers. They were arrested but no charge had been laid against each of them. In short, he did provide assistance to the Customs and Excise Department. For that, I will give him a 5 per cent discount.
The defendant is 35 and has a huge family to support back in India. He ran a mobile phone accessory shop in India. By passing a lengthy sentence onto the defendant, I of course understand that inevitably that will cause a huge financial hardship to the family. I am afraid that is the defendant’s own choosing. He should think carefully before embarking on such journey.
Guidelines on trafficking 4.55 kilogrammes of cocaine are clear. The starting point for that will be one of 26 years’ imprisonment. In this case, drugs were trafficked at least from Dubai to Hong Kong across many countries. I say at least because we have absolutely no idea when the drugs had initially come to the possession of either Mr Taneja or the defendant. Whether it was from Dubai or whether from Delhi, there is the international element, ie, an aggravating feature in this case. As such an additional 3 years will be added. As I say, the defendant will be given a 5 per cent discount and in this case that works out to be approximately 18 months’ imprisonment, a discount of 18 months. Apart from that, I do not see any further discount can be given in this case.
So in conclusion, the defendant will serve an imprisonment term of 27 years and 6 months for the offence he has been convicted.
|