COURT: On 9 July 2022, the defendant driving his own vehicle, was pulled over by the police for a traffic offence. When his identity was revealed, it became clear he was wanted for a criminal damage case. The vehicle was searched and the police found in a black plastic bag, six transparent resealable plastic bags containing 119.4 grammes of a solid containing 99 grammes of cocaine. The defendant was charged with trafficking in a dangerous drug. He pleaded not guilty and has been convicted after trial by a unanimous jury.
In mitigation, Ms Lee has said all she can say under the circumstances. The defendant is not a man with a clear record. He has 14 previous convictions over seven court appearances. His first conviction was when he was 17 years old. He has one previous relating to drugs, possession of dangerous drugs, in 2011. After the defendant was arrested for this offence on 9 July, when he was remanded he was tested for drugs and tested positive for amphetamines.
From the defendant’s evidence, I know he is now 36 years old. When arrested, he said he was working as an air-conditioner technician earning about $25,000 a month. According to his evidence and antecedent, he was living at home with his parents and is single. There is not much else Ms Lee can say other than to stress the defendant’s mother is now ill, receiving treatment for cancer.
Sentencing
I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the most recent authority HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.
Those six steps include assessing the gravity of the offence, and the applicable guideline, identifying the defendant’s role, where within the guideline the defendant should lie, any aggravating factors, any mitigating factors, and the last step, to pass a sentence which is fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.
The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guideline according to the drugs seized. Taking into account the latest guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, the Court of Appeal are of the view that the starting point for trafficking in cocaine between 50 and 200 grammes is 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment.
Mathematically speaking, the defendant trafficking in 99 grammes of cocaine here attracts a starting point of 9 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
I am satisfied that the role of the defendant in this case was that of a courier, delivering drugs from A to B. That is the position that can be described as being bottom of the hierarchy of drug traffickers and therefore I will take the mathematical starting point as appropriate starting point.
The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors. There are none in this case. He was convicted after trial. Therefore I will apply that mathematical starting point.
With the last step in mind, I consider this to be a fair, just, and balanced sentence in light of the circumstances of the offence as well as the defendant.
Accordingly, for this count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the defendant is sentenced to 9 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.