COURT: Defendants, you both pleaded guilty to charges of trafficking before a magistrate sitting at the Eastern Magistracy on 6 July 2023. The 1st defendant (D1), you pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs. For the 2nd defendant (D2), you pleaded guilty to the 1st count of trafficking in dangerous drugs.
In respect of both charges, they are trafficking in dangerous drugs charges. Let me just deal with Charge 1, Count 1. You both admitted that on 9 November 2021, outside Urbanwood, which was a hotel in Ap Lei Chau, you unlawfully trafficked in 4.67 grammes of a solid containing 3.92 grammes of cocaine. In relation to Count 2, the 1st defendant, you admitted that on 8 November 2021, at Room 2503 at the Urbanwood Hotel, you unlawfully trafficked in 89.55 grammes of a solid containing 70.44 grammes of cocaine.
In regards to the facts in support of this charge, you both admitted the Summary of Facts dated 27 April 2023.
The facts in support of Count 1 are that there were police officers conducting anti-narcotics patrol in the Ap Lei Chau area on 9 November 2021. At about 1.18 am, D2 was seen lingering outside the Urbanwood Hotel acting furtively.
D2 then entered the hotel and came back out again together with D1 at about 1.27 am. Both D1 and D2 walked towards Ping Lan Street and stopped. It was there that D1 passed some drugs to D2. Those drugs were 16 plastic bags of which part of them were that as quantified in Charge 1. At this juncture, the police officers intercepted both D1 and D2. D2 immediately threw the plastic bags that were in his possession onto the ground.
Upon a body search of the 1st and 2nd defendants, more plastic bags of drugs were found. Some were found in the front pocket of D1’s hoodie, jacket, and the left pocket of D2’s windbreaker. The total quantity of all the drugs found in possession of D1 and D2 are the drugs as stated in Count 1.
Shortly thereafter, D1 and D2 were arrested and under caution, D1 said that, “I owe a debt, so I need to earn money to repay my debt by selling cocaine”. Under caution, D2 said, “Because I owe a debt resulting from soccer gambling, I traffic in cocaine”.
Upon search of D1, also found were two mobile phones and a hotel room access card for Room 2503 at the Urbanwood as well as $523.30. On D1’s person was found one mobile phone and $142 in cash.
Turning now to the facts of Count 2 against only D1. On 9 November at about 1.37 am, D1 and D2 were escorted to Room 2503. Upon a search of the room by the police officers, the drugs as quantified in Count 2 were found. Also found in the room were other drug trafficking paraphernalia, such as numerous empty resealable plastic bags, an electronic scale, a spoon, a knife and a stapler. D1 was arrested and cautioned and again she said, “I owe a debt and therefore I need to earn money to repay the debt by selling that pile of cocaine”. Under caution, D2 said, “The room was not rented by me. Those drugs in the room were not mine, and I have no idea at all”.
A subsequent investigation by the police found that D1 had checked into the Urbanwood on 8 November at 2354 hours. CCTV footage of the hotel showed D1 had entered the hotel with a paper bag in her right hand, which resembled the appearance of it containing drug trafficking paraphernalia.
For this reason, the charge dates are slightly different for D1 and D2 on Count 1, because they were trafficking on 9 November while D1 had checked into the hotel with the drugs on 8 November.
Turning now to the background of the 1st defendant. She is 22 years of age. At the time of the offence, she was 20 years old. She was then a student studying an associate degree at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Mr Iu, her counsel, informs this court that she had to borrow $12,000 to pay for her school fees. And although she worked as a part-time waiteress at that time, she did not want to rely on her parents to pay the school fees and therefore offered to traffic in these dangerous drugs for $15,000 to pay off her school fees. The defendant is of a clear record.
I have received a letter of mitigation from the defendant herself this morning, stating that she did not at the time understand the consequence of her actions. Now, she realised this during her period of custody and has planned to patch up her future by studying and learning better skills.
Her friends and her family members have all stated that the defendant is a very caring and responsible young lady and obviously a lady of good character and straightforward. But clearly she had come into contact with bad peers which led her to commit this offence. She is remorseful and is going to be turning a new leaf.
In respect of the 2nd defendant, Mr Nelson Lam, his counsel has submitted written mitigation on his behalf. The 2nd defendant is now 22 years of age. Also a man of clear record, good character. He has been studying at the College of International Education in the Hong Kong Baptist University. At the time of this offence, D2 was only 21 years of age.
Mr Lam has said he was young and unsophisticated at the time. His debt resulted from soccer gambling to which he owed $6,000 but he was given a month to pay. He committed this offence out of stupidity and to gain a quick reward of $1,000. Nevertheless, like the 1st defendant, he is bettering himself for the future. He has taken the DSE exam and had only failed one subject.
For both the 1st and 2nd defendant, both counsel has stated that your early pleas of guilty is your strongest mitigation.
It is unfortunate to see such well-educated persons like yourselves committing these very serious offences. On top of that, you are both very young. I am sure that you understand that anything which offers a quick reward and such easy reward should ring alarm bells that they are illegal. It is unfortunate that you both say that you only knew now of the serious consequences of this offence.
For trafficking in drugs, the Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines. For trafficking in cocaine, the guideline case is that of Lau Tak Ming. I shall first deal with Count 1 for the 1st and 2nd defendant. For Count 1, you were trafficking in 3.92 grammes of cocaine. For both of you in this charge, I would consider you as couriers. For this amount of cocaine, it falls in the bracket of up to 10 grammes to which a sentence after trial would be one of between 2 and 5 years’ imprisonment.
There are no aggravating factors to enhance the sentence. The strongest mitigating factor is of course your early plea of guilty at the first opportunity. On that basis, you will receive a one-third discount. Had you been convicted after trial, I would have taken a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. Giving you full credit for your plea, that term shall be reduced to one of 2 years’ imprisonment.
For Count 2, D1, you were trafficking in 70.44 grammes of cocaine. You were a courier and storage person dealing in these drugs. This amount of drugs falls within the band of 50 to 200 grammes in the case of Lau Tak Ming to which a sentence of between 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment after trial is appropriate. There are no aggravating factors in this case.
Again, the strongest mitigating factor is your early plea of guilty to which you shall be rewarded the one-third discount. Had you been convicted after trial, I would have taken a starting point of 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Giving you full credit for your plea, that term shall be reduced to one of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
I shall now take into account the principle of totality, the total drugs, D1, that you were trafficking in the 1st and 2nd charges are an amount of 74.36 grammes of cocaine. Taking that quantity, had you been convicted after trial, it would have the same starting point of 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Therefore the resulting sentence would be 5 years 6 months and that is your total sentence you shall serve. I shall order Charge 1 to run concurrent to Charge 2.