HKSAR v. LUI YI KI INGRID

HCCC 214/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 214 OF 2016

-----------------

-----------------

--------------------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

--------------------------------------------

COURT:

The defendant, Lui Yi-ki Ingrid, pleaded guilty before me to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The offence, which took place on 16 September 2015, concerned a total of 4.96 kilogrammes of a powder containing 3.152 kilogrammes of ketamine.

Around 4 pm on the day in question, the defendant was seen by the police taking a cross-boundary shuttle bus departing Hong Kong for the mainland via Lok Ma Chau Control Point. At 5.54 pm on the same day, a private car was seen travelling from Lok Ma Chau Control Point. The police followed the car until it reached Shung King Street, Hung Hom, Kowloon. The defendant got out of the private car and walked to the car boot and took out a suitcase and a handbag. The car then left. The police intercepted the defendant as the defendant was walking along Shung King Street.

The police searched the defendant outside The Whampoa, No 10, Shung King Street. The police found, inside the handbag that the defendant had earlier taken out of the car boot, some plastic bags containing a total of 4.96 kilogrammes of a powder containing 3.152 kilogrammes of ketamine.

The defendant was arrested. Under caution, she said: “Are you really going to arrest me? I can reveal a lot of things”. When being told that she was indeed under arrest, the defendant said, “Well, now I will not say anything then”. The defendant refused to answer any questions in the subsequently held video-recorded interview.

The driver of the private car confirmed that he picked up the defendant at Huanggang Village, Shenzhen, and he was told by the defendant to drive to Whampoa Garden. She put her baggage inside the car boot herself. There was no other passenger in his vehicle throughout. Upon arrival at Whampoa Garden, she paid him $600, took her baggage out of the car boot herself and left.

The defendant’s DNA was found on the plastic bags containing the drug. The estimated street value of the drug was $629,920. The defendant now admits and accepts that she knowingly imported the dangerous drug seized into Hong Kong.

The criminal record of the defendant shows that she was convicted of one count of possession of dangerous drug and one of possession of equipment fit and intended for smoking dangerous drugs in 2013. She was sentenced to DATC for these matters. The antecedent statement of the defendant says that she is now 24 years old. She was born in Hong Kong and she had received Secondary 5 education in Hong Kong. She previously worked as sales, waitress. She was unemployed at the time of arrest.

My attention is drawn to the case HKSAR v Sin Cheung Kin [2013] 1 HKLRD 627. The Court of Appeal says at paragraph 27 of the judgment:

“The longest sentence in the guidelines laid down in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng is 14 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in 1,000 grammes of ketamine. However, if one follows the rate of enhancement of sentences as is apparent from R v Lau Tak Ming and Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung, then for trafficking in 2,000 grammes and 3,000 grammes of ketamine (which respectively doubles and triples the 1,000 grammes which attracts 14 years’ imprisonment), the appropriate starting points should respectively be no less than 18 years and 20 years.”

Paragraph 28:

“Taking one step further, if more than 3,000 grammes of ketamine is involved, the starting point can exceed 20 years, although the increase in sentence should not be proportional to the increase in the drug quantity. The court should exercise its discretion to pass a sentence appropriate in the circumstances of the particular case.”

The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Sze Kin Wang, CACC 369/2013 referred to the case Sin Cheung Kin and said at paragraph 21 of its judgment:

“In HKSAR v Sin Cheung Kin, this court observed that where large quantities of ketamine were involved, although it was not appropriate to enhance the starting point proportionally, nevertheless ‘the larger the quantity of drug use, the more severe the sentence will be’. The court went on to suggest that unlawful trafficking in 2,000 and 3,000 grammes of ketamine should attract sentences of imprisonment of 18 and 20 years respectively. However, as was made clear in the judgment of this court in HKSAR v Chow Yau Ching, in HKSAR v Sin Cheung Kin, the court was not purporting to lay down new guidelines for sentence.”

Mr Wu, in his mitigation for the defendant, submits that the guilty plea of the defendant demonstrates the defendant’s remorse. The guilty plea also saved the resources and the time of the court and that of the police.

Mr Wu submits that the defendant is now aged 24 and she was born into a household of humble origin. The defendant’s father deserted the family when the defendant was 4 years old and the defendant grew up with her mother and her elder brother. After the defendant finished her Form 5 education, she joined the working force and she had worked as a waitress for two years. She was made redundant two months before the incident in question as the restaurant was closed down. The defendant’s mother was nearly unable to meet both ends.

Under these circumstances, the defendant met up with her friend “Ah Ming” and she was asked to join this unlawful scheme of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The defendant was promised a financial reward of $10,000 and the defendant wanted to earn some quick money in order to ease the poor financial burden at home as she was then in financial difficulties.

Mr Wu submits that the defendant now realises that she has to face a long term of imprisonment but she is prepared to accept the serious legal consequences. Mr Wu is aware of the case Sin Cheung Kin and he is aware that over 3,000 grammes of ketamine can attract a sentence over 20 years, and another 2 years may be added on to the sentence given the cross-border element in this case.

In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind the nature of the dangerous drug involved, the quantity of the dangerous drug, the facts of the case and all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Wu. I have considered the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in the case Sin Cheung Kin and the clarification made by the Court of Appeal in Chow Yau Ching.

In my judgment, given the quantity of ketamine involved in this case, a starting point of 20 years after trial is appropriate. There is a cross-border element in this case which aggravates the seriousness of the offence. In my judgment, the cross-border element of this case calls for an enhancement of 2 years. That would bring the sentence up to 22 years’ imprisonment.

The defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for her guilty plea. That would bring her sentence down to 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. Apart from the guilty plea of the defendant, there is no other mitigating factor that can further reduce the sentence.

For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.