COURT: Both D1 and D2 have pleaded guilty to the single charge on the indictment.
The particulars of offence are that on 9 July 2014 at Room 1529, Harbour Plaza 8 Degrees, 199 Kowloon City Road, Kowloon City, Kowloon in Hong Kong, they unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 993.23 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 962.69 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’.
They have also admitted a summary of facts respectively prepared for them. I will read out the important parts that are commonly admitted by them.
On 9 July 2014, a team of police officers mounted an anti‑dangerous drugs operation at the Harbour Plaza 8 Degrees Hotel, situated at 199 Kowloon City Road, Kowloon City, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
As part of their operation, and with the co-operation of the hotel management, PC 11489, Wong Chi-hung, undertook an observation using the CCTV system in the security room of the hotel.
At around 1912 hours, PC 11489 saw the 1st accused and the 2nd accused heading towards Room 1529. The 1st accused was wearing a grey coloured short-sleeved top and dark trousers, whereas the 2nd accused was wearing a darker coloured short-sleeved up top and beige trousers. The 2nd accused was also carrying a white plastic bag with contents inside.
At around 2217 hours, both accused were seen leaving Room 1529. Instructions were given by Sergeant 50425 to intercept the accused and carry out a search.
PC 12909, Lai Ming-wai, and PC11360, Wong Yiu-pin, intercepted both accused outside the lobby of the hotel. The officers revealed their police identities, showed their warrant cards and told the accused the reason of their interception.
Police carried out the search on both accused and found door card keys on both accused which were later found to operate the door lock of Room 1529.
PC12089 had with him a lawfully obtained and issued search warrant, and this was explained to both accused.
Meanwhile other police officers of the team had arrived to render assistance.
Both accused were escorted to Room 1529, and using one of the door card keys entered the room whereupon a lawful search of the room was conducted in the presence of the accused.
PC11489 had been assigned the Exhibits Officer and seized the exhibits found as follows:
(a) A blue box inside of which was a vacuum sealing machine. The box is Exhibit P26, and the sealing machine Exhibit P27.
(b) A black plastic bag, Exhibit P28, which contained a leather jacket, Exhibit P29, which in turn was wrapped around a black electronic scale, Exhibit P30; a blue electric screwdriver, Exhibit P31; a set of drill bits of varying sizes, Exhibit P32, for the said electric screwdriver, a black screwdriver, Exhibit P33; a pair of scissors, Exhibit P34; a roll of adhesive tape, Exhibit P35; a box, Exhibit P36; containing a roll of tin foil, Exhibit P37; a rolling pin, Exhibit P38; and a box of plastic zipper bags, Exhibits P39.
From the top of the safe inside a wardrobe there were found and seized the following:
(a) One Marlboro cigarette packet, Exhibit P1, inside of which was a transparent plastic bag containing a crystalline substance, Exhibit P2.
(b) A black plastic bag, Exhibit P3, inside of which was a box printed with the words “PAI DIANZI”, Exhibit P4, which in turn contained an amplifier also bearing the words “PAI DIANZI”, Exhibit P5 - this is the 1st amplifier.
PC 11489 used the black screwdriver, Exhibit P33, to dismantle Exhibit P5, that is the first amplifier, and found concealed inside a packet wrapped in a piece of tin foil, Exhibit P6, which in turn was wrapped around a piece of carbon copy paper, Exhibit P7, which in turn was wrapped around a plastic bag containing a crystalline substance, Exhibit P8.
(c) Inside the same black plastic bag, Exhibit P3, there was another box, this time printed with words “AUTO POWER”, Exhibit P9. Inside this box was another amplifier bearing the words “AUDIO BANK”, Exhibit P10, and this the 2nd amplifier.
Using the same screwdriver, Exhibit P33, PC 11489 dismantled Exhibit P10, the second amplifier, and found inside another packet wrapped in a similar manner which was inside Exhibit P5. The tin foil outer wrapping is Exhibit P11. The carbon copy paper is Exhibit P12, inside of which was a plastic bag, containing a crystalline substance, Exhibit P13.
(d) A second plastic bag bearing the words “Marathon Sports”, Exhibit P14, was also found on top of the safe.
(e) Inside the second plastic bag was a box printed with word “LNUO”, Exhibit P15, inside of which was an amplifier bearing a word “KLANG”, Exhibit P16, and this is the third amplifier.
Using the same screwdriver, Exhibit P33, PC 11489 dismantled Exhibit P16 and found inside another package wrapped in a similar manner as before. The tin foil wrapping is Exhibit P17, and the carbon copy paper is Exhibit P18, inside of which was a plastic bag containing a crystalline substance, Exhibit P19.
Inside the same plastic bag, Exhibit P14, was another box, this time printed with the words “AUDIO BANK”, Exhibit P20, which in turn contained another amplifier also bearing the words “AUDIO BANK”, Exhibit P21, that is the fourth amplifier.
As before, PC 11489 was able to use the screwdriver, Exhibit P33, to dismantle the amplifier and found a further package wrapped in tin foil, Exhibit P22, and carbon copy paper, Exhibit P23, which in turn wrapped a plastic bag containing a crystalline substance, Exhibit P24.
PC 12909 arrested the 1st accused for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug and cautioned him. Following the caution, the 1st accused said that the ‘Ice’ belonged to him.
On the other hand, PC11360 arrested the 2nd accused for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug and cautioned him. Following the caution, the 2nd accused said, “Sir, the ‘Ice’ belongs to me and my friend, give me a chance”. The 2nd accused admits the said words were spoken voluntarily. The police officers had not in any way assaulted him, threatened him, offered him any inducement or otherwise acted in an improper manner.
Also seized from the 2nd accused, from his wallet, was a receipt with the name “Winner Speaker Professional Repair” for a $500 deposit on speakers.
Both accused were taken to Kowloon City Police Station where a report was made to the duty officer. The bags containing the crystalline substance were sent to Government Chemist for analysis. The analysis confirmed the following:
(a) Exhibit P2 contained 43.23 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 42.69 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
(b) Exhibit P8 contained 0.24 kilogrammes of crystalline solid containing 0.23 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
(c) Exhibit P13 contained 0.24 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.23 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
(d) Exhibit P19 contained 0.23 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.23 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
(e) Exhibit P24 contained 0.24 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.23 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Of the total quantity of dangerous drugs, 950 grammes, had been packed inside the amplifiers, and 43.23 grammes inside the cigarette packet which accounts for a total of 993.23 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 962.69 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride as stated on the indictment.
According to the hotel staff and the records maintained by the hotel as part of its business records, at about 1030 hours on 6 July 2014, the 1st accused went to the hotel to make a room reservation but was unable to provide a credit card to secure the reservation. At about 1100 hours, the 1st accused this time accompanied by the 2nd accused, returned to the hotel and registered for a room, namely Room 1529. They were asked to produce their identity cards and after their identities had been confirmed, the check-in formalities were completed.
The booking was for one day from 6 to 7 July 2014, and cash of HK$2,337 was paid to the hotel. Two door card keys for Room 1529 were issued to the accused. The room had been registered in the name of the 1st accused.
The 1st accused subsequently extended the reservation on 7, 8 and 9 July 2014, and on each occasion the two door card keys were processed to enable them to be used for the period of the extension.
A review of the CCTV recording system confirms the accused checked into the hotel on 6 July. However, between 6 July and the time of their arrest they had not used the room to stay in overnight. They had been recorded entering and leaving the room during various times between 6 and 9 July.
Miss Chau Yuk-wah, the owner of the Winner Speaker Professional Repair shop, recalls that on the evening of 8 July 2014, two males entered her shop at Apliu Street, Shum Shui Po. They offered to pay $100 if they could disassemble a car amplifier to see if it met their needs. The owner refused and asked them what they wanted the amplifier for, but received no reply. The two males then purchased a car amplifier for HK$780. They unpacked it in the shop and borrowed a screwdriver to disassemble it. After inspecting the disassembled amplifier for a while, they reassembled it before leaving the shop.
At about 1630 hours on 9 July, the same two males returned to the shop and asked to purchase three more amplifiers. Since the shop had no stock, Miss Chau asked for a deposit of HK$500 and provided them with a receipt, Exhibit P25.
Later, three further amplifiers were obtained and sold to the two males who again disassembled and reassembled them in the shop before taking them away.
The Hong Kong street retail value of the dangerous drugs for the month of July 2014 was HK$444,967, calculated on the basis of the average retail price per gramme for that month that was HK$448. The calculation is as follows. It is: 993.23 x $448 = $444,967.
Each of the accused admit that together with the other accused that he was in possession of dangerous drugs, the subject of the indictment, and each was part of a joint enterprise to traffic in those dangerous drugs.
Cross and Cheung, Sentencing in Hong Kong, 7th Edition, pages 631-632, refers to Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 for the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ‘Ice’. In respect to a quantity of 300 to 600 grammes, the appropriate sentence should be 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment, and for a quantity of 600 grammes and over the same tariffs as prescribed for heroin: see HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas [2009] 2 HKC 197.
For trafficking in a quantity of 600 to 1200 grammes of ‘Ice’, which is the bracket applicable to this case, the appropriate sentence for offenders convicted after trial should be 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691 at 694 paragraph 4. On a mathematical calculation, 962.69 grammes of ‘Ice’ in the present case attracts a sentence of imprisonment for 21 years and 9 months.
The 1st defendant has the previous conviction which was for possession of DD and he was convicted on 18 July 2012. The 2nd defendant has a clear record.
Both defendants have presented a number of letters of mitigation for my consideration.
D1 has written himself expressing his stupidity in being tempted by money to packaging dangerous drugs for others, and his remorse. He also presents a letter from his parents and brother, all expressing love and support for him. And there are also two letters from his two former teachers and two letters from social workers which consider him a nice person. All ask me for leniency for him.
D2 presents his own letter to the court, together with one letter from his brother who writes on his behalf and on behalf of their parents. There is also a letter from a social worker. They express they are being shocked by learning the 2nd defendant committing this serious offence, and they urge the court to be lenient with him.
For a serious offence such as trafficking in a dangerous drug, personal circumstances rarely provide any basis for mitigation of sentence. Although I sympathise with the families, the youth of both defendants, unless they are qualified as the extreme youth, does not help reduce their sentence either. I am, however, not taking the 1st defendant’s minor record against him.
The only substantial mitigation is the plea of guilty made by both defendants and I believe that, as shown in their own letters, they are remorseful and I, therefore, find them truly entitled to the one-third discount from the starting point.
Regarding D2, he pleaded guilty to the charge on 25 September 2015. He also expressed his willingness to offer assistance to the authorities by giving evidence against D1. As a result, he gave two non-prejudicial statements, detailing D1’s involvement in the offence.
On 3 November 2015, that is yesterday, when the trial against D1 commenced, D1 pleaded guilty which rendered the offer of D2 to give evidence against him nugatory.
For this assistance, D2 is entitled to a further discount. According to HKSAR v Tsoi Sin Yee CACC 27/2014, 15 July 2014 (unreported), the discount is, altogether, of the 40 to 45 per cent range. See also Z v HKSAR, [2007] 10 HKCFAR 183 and HKSAR v Ng Shek Yu CACC 178/2000, 1 March 2001 (unreported).
Taking into account all the circumstances, and exercising the greatest leniency allowed of myself, I adopt a starting point of 21 years of imprisonment for both defendants.
Regarding D1, I give him a full one-third discount for his guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for 14 years.
Regarding D2, apart from his guilty plea, I give him credit for his providing information for the assistance of the authorities and his preparedness in giving evidence against D1, although it has become unnecessary for him to do so because of D1’s voluntary plea of guilty.
The sentence I pass on D2 is 12 years’ imprisonment.