HKSAR v. ALI MOHSIN

DCCC 1466/2024

[2026] HKDC 468

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1466 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  D1 to D7 were jointly charged with the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.  The particulars of the offence were that D1 to D7, on the 11th day of March, 2024, at Room 1713, 17^th floor, the Kimberley Hotel, Tsim Sha Tsui, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 25.893 kilogrammes of cannabis in herbal form.

3.  D1 and D2 pleaded guilty only at the first day of the trial, while D3, D4 and D5 pleaded guilty at the outset, and D7 pleaded guilty just before the trial started.  D6 pleaded not guilty but convicted after trial.

4.  The facts of the case were simply that a group of travellers, including D3 to D7, entering Hong Kong and resided at the Kimberley Hotel.  When they entered the hotel, most had entered the Room 1713 and left their suitcases therein.  They then moved out and stayed in other rooms, and eventually 3 suitcases were left in Room 1713, where, upon police arrival and search, the above quantity of cannabis were found in the 3 suitcases and also in the bed.

5.  D3, D4 and D5 had stayed in that room for some time when police arrived.  D1 and D2 knocked and entered the room about 30 minutes before the police came.  D6 only stayed in the room for about 3 minutes, but her DNA was found in the interior surface of the suitcase containing cannabis, while D7’s fingerprint was also found on one of the packets containing herbal cannabis.

6.  All defendants but D1 had no criminal record.  D1 had a minor offence and according to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance, the court will not consider for sentence.

Mitigation

7.  All counsel submitted the case of HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329, which set out the sentencing guideline for trafficking herbal cannabis, where over 9 kilogrammes, 48 to 66 months’ imprisonment; over 15 kilogrammes, 66 to 96 months’ imprisonment; over 45 kilogrammes, 96 to 120’ months’ imprisonment.

8.  In the present case, the quantity of herbal cannabis were 25.893 kilogrammes.  The street value was estimated as 4.99 million.  The starting point shall be about 77 months’ imprisonment.

9.  Further, the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKC 458 was also referred where the court shall take the six-step approach for sentencing, including the consideration of the quantity of drugs, the role and culpability of the defendant, the circumstances of commission of the offence, any factor to depart from the sentencing guideline, the particular mitigation and any exceptional personal circumstances, and also the overall circumstances for the sentence.

10.  Mr Tracy for D1 submitted that D1 is now aged 26, he is single, educated in Hong Kong ending in Secondary 6.  He was engaged full-time as a cargo worker loading and unloading cargo in aircraft at the airport.  He earned about HK$16,000 per month.

11.  For the commission of the offence, it is submitted that D1 received a call to go to the Kimberly Hotel and to collect the cannabis, and he will receive about HK$1,000 for the collection.  Later on, when D1 entered the hotel, a lady appeared in the corridor and told D1 and D2 that they were going to get 6 packages of cannabis.  D1 later on entered the room and saw the 6 packages on the bed.  He only intended to take the 6 packages to meet the dealer.  He had no involvement at all with all the cannabis alleged in the 3 suitcases, and he had never seen D3, D4, and D5 on any other occasion.

12.  Mr Tracy also submitted that from the CCTV footages at the hotel, D1 and D2 appeared only once, on page 43 in that photo album, shortly before they entered the Room 1713.  So in gist, the evidence only went to that D1 and D2’s involvement were only 6 packages, instead of all the cannabis in question.

13.  So according to the case just mentioned, Herry Jane Yusuph, the starting point for the sentence could be appropriately decreased.  Mr Tracy at the end of the day also submitted that because of the late guilty plea, perhaps a discount of 25% could be given to D1.

14.  Ms Sujanani for D2 submitted that D2 is a Hong Kong resident.  He worked as a food delivery worker earning about HK$18,000 per month.  As in the same case with D1, they were asked to collect the 6 packages of cannabis from Kimberley Hotel.  They went there and later on entered the room and saw the 6 packages of cannabis on the bed.  Before they were about to leave, the police suddenly arrived and arrested them.

15.  It is submitted that D2 is in the lowest category in terms of culpability.  He was only engaged by the drug dealer who was purchasing the drugs.  He was there to deliver the drugs to him.  D2 was a mere delivery person / courier.  He had no role in negotiating the price.  He had not paid for the drugs.  He would only get a fee of HK$1,000 for doing so.  It was also urged that the court should also adopt a 25% discount on his late guilty plea.

16.  To conclude, D2’s role was a mere courier.  D1 and D2 were moving only a small portion of the whole quantity for the purchaser.  It would be fair to impose a lower starting point than others.  D2 was no more than a courier in the whole circumstances of the case.  It is submitted that D2 was stupid and he realised the full consequence of his commission of the offence.

17.  Both D1 and D2 had submitted letters from the Islamic Centre showing that they are person of good character.

18.  Mr Corlett for D3 submitted that D3 is 42 years old.  He was born in Chiang Mai, Thailand.  D3 finished high school and also got four years college course in accounting.  He left college early when he was at 20 as a result of having a daughter and needing to support her.  He then started a street food business.  Because of the COVID, it was not economic to continue.  He had divorced and now has three daughters aged 7, 11 and 23.  His father was diagnosed with stage 3 stomach cancer.  And he has no previous conviction in Hong Kong.

19.  For the commission of the offence, it was submitted that he was only hired by other person.  His responsibility was to meet with the buyer in the hotel room to hand over the drugs.  He committed the offence because he wanted an opportunity to earn some money.  He needed the money to pay for the medical treatment for his father.  He is now very regretful for what he had done and asked the court’s lenience.

20.  To conclude, Mr Corlett submitted that although it was not apparent on the summary of facts, there was necessarily an international element in the actions of the defendants.  But his role was at a low level, he was not the mastermind.  He had been recruited to meet with the buyer in the hotel room to hand over the drugs.

21.  In the circumstances, Mr Corlett asked for the normal discount for an early guilty plea.  D3 also submitted a letter basically saying that he needed to raise funds to pay for the substantial medical expenses.  He was tempted to engage in this unlawful act and he is now very regretful for what he had done. He promised he would never commit the offence again.

22.  Mr Boey for D4 submitted that D4 is 43 years old, received university level of education in Thailand studying hospitality.  She operated her own online shop selling clothes, earning about 20,000 Thai Baht per month.  She had no criminal conviction in Hong Kong.

23.  It was submitted that D4 was only a cog in the machine.  She was neither the mastermind nor the person in control.  The role she played in the present offence was more akin to those at the bottom of the trafficking hierarchy, and there was no aggravating factor.

24.  The best mitigation was that she pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.  It shows her remorse and D4 asked for the leniency of the court. It is also submitted that D4 has learned a hard lesson.  During her current remand, she had sought help from Father John Wotherspoon who had generously paid her the fee to enable her to enrol into an English course in the Chinese University, and now she had passed the examination.

25.  Mr Marray for D5 submitted that D5 is 46 years old, graduated in Thailand with Bachelor of Arts.  She was married for 6 years and divorced in 2008.  She had been a salesperson since 2019 earning around 20,000 Thai Baht per month.  She has a clear record in Hong Kong.

26.  Concerning the sentence following the principle as stated in Herry Jane Yusuph, the first step is concerning the guidelines as laid down in Nguyen Thang Loi as stated above.  The second step, D5 assisted in bringing the dangerous drugs into the hotel room and  stayed there with the dangerous drugs inside the hotel room, and can be regarded as being at the lower end of the hierarchy.  The third step, taking into account the quantity of cannabis and the role of D5, it is submitted that D5 should be sentenced at the lower end of the band.  There are no aggravating factors of the case, and D5 pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.  The last step, the overall sentence is to ensure it is on a fair, just, and balanced approach concerning all the circumstances of the offence.  Taking into account of her guilty plea and clear record, it is hoped that a lenient sentence can be imposed.

27.  There was also a letter submitted to this court by D5, basically saying that due to the medical bill of her parents, and also the business loss of the COVID, there was a total amount of debts about 2 million Thai Baht.  That is the reason why D5 committed the present offence.  D5 asks for the court’s leniency, and hopes to return to Thailand as soon as possible to take care and look after her parents.

28.  Mr Wright for D6 submitted that D6 is 56 years old.  She has no criminal record in Hong Kong.  She has 7 children, the youngest of whom is only 16 years old.  This is the first time that D6 travelled outside Thailand where she was a market stall holder selling used consumer products.  It was also submitted that there was no evidence at trial as to the provenance of the cannabis, and there is insufficient basis to enhance the sentence for any international element. But if the court disagrees, any enhancement should at most be 6 months.

29.  It is also submitted that the evidence does not reveal the defendant’s role in the offence.  The CCTV screenshots only show other persons playing much more active roles, including reserving hotel rooms, collecting key cards, moving suitcases in and out.  Unlike D6, only staying in the room for 3 minutes.  D6 is only playing a very minor role in the circumstances.

30.  Mr Ma for D7 submitted that D7 is 41 years old, educated up to year 3 in high school.  He worked as a driver and a delivery worker in Thailand earning about 20,000 Thai Baht (about HK$5,000)  per month.  He has 3 children, 2 daughters and 1 son.  He is the sole breadwinner in the family.  He committed the offence because he needed money to support his 3 children to attend schools.

31.  D7 pleaded guilty, although a late guilty plea just before the trial started.  D7 only played a minor role in this matter.  He was not  present in the room when police arrived.  He did not know D1 and D2.  He did not take part in any discussion inside Room 1713, he did not know anything about the transaction, the pricing, the quantity and the mode of delivery.  And lastly, it is asked that 25% of discount could be given to his late guilty plea.

Consideration

32.  To start with, no doubt all the defendants were not the mastermind, but as the courier recruited to take part in this joint enterprise to traffic the cannabis to Hong Kong, especially for D3 to D7, international element was involved.  But taking into account their respective roles, I do not intend to enhance the sentence.

33.  Further, as each defendant may only involve in small quantity but not the whole quantity of the drugs, and all defendants have clear record (as mentioned D1’s record will not be considered for sentence), I therefore assess that the starting point can be lower to 6 years’ imprisonment for D3 to D7.  For D3, D4 and D5, upon their guilty plea, each be sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. 

34.  For D1 and D2, I accepted that their roles were even less active.  They were not even the people taking drugs to Hong Kong, but just went there to collect small part of cannabis for trade purpose.  I therefore take a lower starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment.  But for their late guilty plea, only 25% discount be given, and their respective sentence is 45 months’ imprisonment upon guilty plea each.

35.  For D6, she was found guilty after trial.  There is no other matter to make further discount, so D6 be sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment.

36.  For D7, likewise, the late guilty plea just before the trial can only attract 25% discount from 6 years’ imprisonment.  So D7 be sentenced to 4.5 years, that is 54 months’ imprisonment upon guilty plea.

37.  Therefore the sentence of all defendants as follows: -

D1 and D2: each 45 months’ imprisonment;

D3, D4 and D5: each 4 years’ imprisonment;

D6: 6 years’ imprisonment;

D7: 54 months’ imprisonment.