|
HCCC 377/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 377 OF 2016
-----------------
------------------
| Date: |
12 December 2016 at 10.43 am |
| Present: |
Mr Richard Turnbull, on fiat, for HKSAR |
|
Ms Munira Moosdeen, instructed by Simon C W Yung & Co, assigned by DLA, for the accused |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) |
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.
The defendant delivered six boxes to a DHL shop for shipment to Australia. He provided his Hong Kong ID card to the staff there as the shipper. The transaction was captured by CCTV inside the shop. After those boxes were transferred to DHL’s warehouse, they were raided by the police and dangerous drugs were found inside.
The defendant was tracked down and arrested. Under caution, he admitted that he knew that those boxes contained drugs and he helped others to deliver those to the DHL shop for shipment for a reward of $1,200.
Upon analysis, it was found that the drugs were 20.04 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 19.55 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The retail value of the drugs is around HK$6 million.
The defendant is now aged 33. He has a clear record. Before sentence, I was shown a copy of an NPS dated 7 December this year, made by the defendant to the police. The prosecution has indicated that the police had considered the contents and did not find such of much assistance. In fact, paragraph 29 of the Summary of Facts already set out that the investigators were unable to locate the sender of the six boxes, Mr Ko Chi-yuen. Therefore, I am of the view that I could proceed to sentence.
By way of mitigation, I was told that, initially, the defendant was not aware of the contents of the boxes that he delivered, but when he was offered $200 per box as delivery charge, he had knowledge that these were drugs. But nonetheless, he succumbed to the temptation. Counsel stressed that he did not know the nature of the drugs nor the exact quantity nor the estimated street value. It was submitted that he was only a foot solider being lured into the present situation by his misguided loyalty and trust to a person whom he believed to be friend that he got to know working as part-time worker at a banquet department of a reputable hotel.
Counsel also stressed that the defendant is a man of unblemished record and because of a single fall from grace, his young daughter, who is now aged 2, will be deprived of paternal care and love for quite a lengthy period of time. Counsel asked this court to temper justice with mercy and exercise discretion in sentencing.
In sentencing the defendant, I have taken into account his plea, the nature of the drugs, the relevant sentencing tariff and mitigation forwarded by counsel on his behalf as well as the letters in mitigation written by his family members and friends and colleagues.
The most important consideration in sentencing drug trafficking cases is the narcotic content of the drugs. The tariff in Ching Kwok Hung has been recast in the case of Tam Yi Chun which laid down the following. Trafficking between 300 and 600 grammes of ‘Ice’, 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment; trafficking in amounts of 600 grammes and over, the same tariffs as are prescribed in Abdallah for those quantities of heroin; and in the case of Abdallah, it is laid down that trafficking between 4,000 to 15,000 grammes, 26 to 30 years’ imprisonment. Trafficking over 15,000 grammes, which is 15 kilogrammes, at the sentencer’s discretion.
The present case involved narcotics of 19.55 kilogrammes which is well above the 15-kilogramme tariff. I consider a 31-year starting point as appropriate and given the international factor, I enhance it by 2 years, making it a starting point sentence of 33 years after trial.
I have been considering the judgment given by the Court of Appeal, which is dated 2 September this year, in the case of Ngo Van Nam & another. That is in relation to the discount to be given on a plea. I take a look at the committal date in this case which is 26 August this year, which is before the Court of Appeal handed down the judgment of Ng Man Nam’s case. I am minded to give him the full one-third discount for his guilty plea and his clear record is subsumed into the one-third discount.
He is sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment.
|