HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIM SHING

HCCC 343/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 343 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

COURT: Mr Cheung, you have been found guilty after trial of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. You have been found guilty of trafficking in 1.450 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or ‘Ice’ as it is commonly called.

The jury found that you had recruited PW1, Miss Lee. It was you that encouraged her to import the ‘Ice’ from China and she did that in the hope of a reward to pay off her mahjong debts and perhaps to pay for her own drug habit because she was also a consumer of ‘Ice’. They did not believe what you alleged, which was that you were having an affair with the lady. They did believe that you took her to Shenzhen and you taped the drugs to her body and then escorted her back to Hong Kong. She was intercepted at the border and you were not.

PW1 assisted the Customs and Excise by attempting a controlled delivery of those drugs to you. You must have realised something had gone wrong when she contacted you because you did not collect them from her. If it had not been for her assistance, you would not have been identified or apprehended.

She also gave evidence in court. It was not the only evidence against you but it was first-hand direct evidence of your involvement, and the jury clearly believed what she had to say. She was made the subject of considerable cross-examination as to her character and her morals.

If not for her, you may very well have not been convicted.

The retail value of the drugs that you were trafficking in was $620,256 in August of 2014.

You are now 58 years of age. You have a criminal record, albeit that you have never previously been convicted for trafficking in dangerous drugs there are, nevertheless, a number of lesser drug-related matters but I am not taking those into account when sentencing you.

I am assisted by both counsel in understanding that you were, in fact, arrested for this matter on 27 March 2015 whilst serving a sentence of imprisonment. That sentence of imprisonment for possession of dangerous drugs was served by 7 June of 2015. Nevertheless, I take the view that the time that you were on remand for this matter from 27 March to 7 June is a period of time which should be taken into consideration when serving the sentence I am about to pass. Just as the period from 7 June to this date will also be taken into consideration.

You have, through your counsel, advanced no mitigation for this offence. I do understand, Mr Cheung, the difficulty in doing so because only the most exceptional personal mitigation will afford any form of discount of sentence in matters of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

You fall, Mr Cheung, to be sentenced under the guidelines as set out in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691 and HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437. Those cases state that an appropriate range of sentencing for between 1,200 to 4,000 grammes of ‘Ice’ is between 23 to 26 years, and taking into account all of the information that is available to me, I take a starting point of 23 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

There can be no discount for mitigation in this case as none has been advanced. But there is also the aggravating feature which I have to take into account which is the international element of this offence, and for the importation of this ‘Ice’ from China, following the comments of the court in HKSAR v Abdallah, you will receive an additional 2 years’ imprisonment.

You will therefore, Mr Cheung, go to prison for 25 years and 3 months, but I make it clear that the period from 27 March to 7 June 2015, is to be taken into consideration in the period of time that you will serve.