COURT: I am going to announce sentence, the defendant may stay seated.
The defendant pleaded guilty at committal on 20 March 2015, to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to Section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.
The drug was 866 grammes of a paste containing 207 grammes of cocaine. The defendant, a 24 year old Columbian national, landed at Hong Kong International on a flight from Argentina via Dubai.
Internal concealment was suspected, he was refused landing and sent to Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Subsequently, he discharged 36 packets containing 866 grammes of a paste containing 207 grammes of cocaine. Cash of US$1,647 was seized.
Under caution, the defendant said he became acquainted with a man “Don Chacho” through a middle man. He was unable to contact either man, although he had the email address of “Don Chacho”. In an email, “Don Chacho” had offered the defendant US$5,000 to bring drugs to Hong Kong. The defendant said he accepted because of his financial situation.
He was given the drugs in Bolivia, swallowed them and brought them to Hong Kong. He knew the drug was cocaine.
The estimated retail value of the seized drug in September 2014 was HK$925,754.
The defendant has a clear record in Hong Kong, and I am told by his counsel that he has a clear record in his home country, and in support, a copy of what purports to be some form of police record is presented to the court.
The defendant is now 25, he has a Columbian passport. He is single. I was advised that the antecedent statement which says that his father is alive is incorrect. His father is said to have died 9 years ago. His mother was a housewife, and he has two younger brothers who are students. He himself is a part-time university student, and appears to have been supported by his family, and also by part-time work on a farm.
In a letter to the court, the defendant expresses regret for this offence, and explains the difficulties of the family. The finances of the family drove him to accept this offer. Since his father is dead, it has been a struggle for the family to pay mortgage payments.
The only cogent reason for mitigation in this case is the defendant’s plea of guilty, which was made at an early stage, at committal. The basis for sentencing is the Lau Tak Ming guidelines, and the narcotic quantity is 207 grammes, which brings this case into the range of 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment. There should also be an enhancement of the starting point to take note of the importation factor.
In this case, I take a starting point of 12 years and 6 months for the importation factor. I discount the sentence by one-third, and sentence the defendant to 8 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.