HKSAR v. TSANG WAI KEUNG

HCCC 184/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 184 OF 2014

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

The defendant went with another person, Chim, to Sao Paulo, Brazil, to bring drugs back to Hong Kong. When intercepted by Customs officers at the Hong Kong International Airport, drugs were found in his two suitcases. Although Chim’s suitcases contained no contraband, Chim was in possession of four keys which could open the two suitcases that the defendant had with him. The defendant now admits that he was importing drugs from Brazil back to Hong Kong.

The drugs, on later analysis, were found to consist of 18.95 kilogrammes of a solid containing 13.73 kilogrammes of cocaine with an estimated street value of near to HK$17 million.

The defendant is now aged 57. He has one previous record which dates back to 1981, which is totally unrelated to drugs.

By way of mitigation, I am told that both he and his wife suffer from depression and in fact, at the time of the present offence, the defendant, apart from suffering from depression, also had hypertension and diabetes. He was unemployed at the time. They have a son who is now aged 7 and who was diagnosed with autism and mild to moderate grade mental retardation. He has an 86-year-old mother suffering from dementia.

I was told that he owed gambling debt to Chim and in order to make repayment and improve his own living, for a reward of $150,000, he was lured to commit the present offence. Because of his arrest, he never received that money.

Counsel asked me to take into account the defendant’s family circumstances, his guilty plea, and his offer to give evidence against Chim went beyond a mere promise and that, in fact, he had given a non-prejudicial statement to the police and is indeed listed as a prosecution witness in a trial against Chim. Counsel also stressed that the defendant was just a courier and not the mastermind in this present trafficking activity.

In sentencing the defendant, I have taken into account the nature of the offence, the quantity of the drugs involved and the sentencing authorities and tariff as well as the mitigation forwarded.

I must say at the outset that whilst the defendant’s family circumstances call for sympathy, financial stringency, monetary gain or quick money are not uncommon background to most trafficking cases which seldom attract extra discounts.

According to the case of Abdallah Anwar, the amount of drugs involved in this case bring this under the 4 kilogrammes to 15 kilogrammes; that is a starting point of 26 to 30 years. Here, we are concerned with 13.73 kilogrammes of cocaine which brings us nearer to the top end of the bracket.

Further, this case involves an international element and according to Abdallah Anwar, an enhancement of not less than 2 years is expected where the narcotics weigh about 1 kilogramme. However, given the high starting point, I am not in favour of a straitjacket mathematical approach.

Taking all factors into account, I am of the view that a starting point of 30 years is appropriate in the circumstances of the present case.

I take into account this defendant’s timely plea and his indication to testify against Chim and the fact that he was indeed listed as a prosecution witness in Chim’s trial. Although he was not required to so testify because, on the first day of trial, Chim changed his plea to a guilty plea, it is clear that his willingness to testify was pivotal to Chim’s guilty plea.

On the other hand, looking at the evidence against Chim, it is clear that the prosecution could still make out their case against Chim without this defendant’s evidence on both circumstantial evidence as well as Chim’s own cautioned statement.

The 50 per cent discount counsel asks for is not realistic as this is only reserved for the ‘super-grass’ category. I shall give the defendant 40 per cent discount.

He is sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment.