COURT: Defendant was found guilty after trial for one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug.
In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, personal background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.
The facts of the case are simple and may be summarised as follows:
The Customs found a parcel in the post and initial test revealed it contained dangerous drug. Arrangement was made for a controlled delivery at a post office. On 5 December 2018, the defendant came to the post office. Having gone through some procedures, he obtained the parcel. As soon as he walked out of the post office holding the parcel, he was intercepted and arrested. The parcel was later confirmed to contain a dangerous drug commonly known as ‘Ice’. It was 5,006 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 5,006 grammes of ‘Ice’.
Under caution, the defendant said he had been asked by another person whom he calls “the boss” to come to collect the parcel for a promised reward of $2,000. He said he had been told that the parcel contained something legal.
I was told that the defendant was, at the time of the offence, approaching 18 years of age. He received education up to Form 3 and had been working as a transportation worker at the airport, earning about $500 a day. He had been living with his parents, both are in gainful employment. The defendant does not have a clear record. He was convicted of robbery both in 2016 and 2017, and on both occasions, sentenced to have training at detention centre.
Learned counsel for the defence, Mr Wong, stressed the age of the defendant when he committed the offence, and that he had not committed any dangerous drug related offence before. He asked the court to be as lenient as possible and give the defendant an early chance to turn over a new leaf. The defence submitted a letter written by the parents of the defendant. It is disclosed in the letter that the parents are indeed foster parents of the defendant who had been deserted by her natural mother when he was only 5 months’ old. It was also revealed that the defendant has been suffering from ill health. They pleaded leniency on behalf of the defendant.
The offence in question is an excepted offence and therefore the provision in section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance is not binding on me. In any case, in my judgment, this case is far too serious and whatever form of non-custodial sentence will not be appropriate. The dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was ‘Ice’. The total narcotic content was 5,006 grammes. According to HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun, CACC 524/2011, the tariffs as prescribed in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 is applicable. In Abdallah, the Court of Appeal held that if the narcotic content was 4,000 grammes to 15,000 grammes, the sentence should be 26 to 30 years’ imprisonment. Thus, taking the quantity of the narcotic content which the defendant trafficked in, a starting point of 26 years and 3 months is called for.
The defendant was not yet an adult when he committed the offence but was just days younger. He had been convicted twice of robbery, an offence of serious nature. He did not learn the lesson and not long after his discharge from the detention centre, he committed the present even more grievous offence. Despite the abled mitigation submission of Mr Wong, having regards to authority, I am of the view that the said starting point is appropriate.
In the present case, the dangerous drug was sent by post from Malaysia. The defendant must have known that the drug had come from abroad. Even if he was not that sure earlier, when the parcel came to his hands, he must have realised it and he yet carried on with his unlawful job. That said, I am persuaded by Mr Wong that the role of the defendant was just a local courier and he had not arranged for the importing of the drug. I therefore will not enhance the sentence for the international element.
I have considered whether defendant is entitled to any discount. Having regard to the whole circumstances, including what had been said on the defendant’s behalf by counsel, as well as the personal and health condition of the defendant, I exercise my discretion to give the defendant a discount of 3 months.
Defendant please stand up. For the reasons I have mentioned, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 26 years.