COURT: I shall deal with each defendant in turn. First of all, with the 1st defendant who has pleaded guilty to the 1st count in the indictment, for trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 1.76 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.73 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The story begins on 1 February 2013 when the 1st defendant, together with the 2nd and 3rd defendants, were intercepted at the Cathay Pacific check-in counter at the Hong Kong International Airport where they were checking in for a flight for a guided tour to Australia for nine days.
Upon a search of the 1st defendant’s rucksack two pairs of jeans were found in that rucksack which were specially altered jeans in that there were pouches which were attached along the internal waist bands of the jeans which contained the drugs named in the indictment. Also found inside the 1st defendant’s rucksack was her own passport together with the passports of the 2nd and the 3rd defendants.
The 1st defendant, upon being arrested and cautioned, admitted that it was she who told the 2nd and 3rd defendants to help her take the dangerous drugs to Australia.
Upon being interviewed subsequently, the 1st defendant said in her video-recorded interview that she wanted to earn quick money and that she was told that she was to take either electronic components or dangerous drugs to Australia. She claimed that she thought these were cannabis. She gave an account of how she recruited the 2nd and the 3rd defendants and how the tour to Australia was paid for by an unknown male who gave her the money.
It was also said by her that she would receive HK$30,000 as a reward whilst the 2nd and the 3rd defendants would receive HK$15,000 and HK$10,000 respectively. The total street value of the drugs found on the 1st defendant was in the region of $1,291,840.
The 1st defendant is aged 23 years and came to Hong Kong in 1997. She has a clear record and in mitigation, according to Mr So, she had wanted to earn this reward money because of financial circumstances and that the 1st defendant is remorseful and co-operated with the police by giving a full confession and had offered a non-prejudicial statement prior to the first day of trial and, prior to the change of plea by the 3rd defendant, and she had already been given an immunity to testify against the 3rd defendant.
Letters were also submitted on her behalf testifying to the fact that she was a good daughter and that she committed this wrongdoing because she wanted to raise money to help her family.
What has to be understood is that in cases of this nature the significance of family circumstances and financial situations pales into insignificance against the very evil nature of this type of offence.
Drug traffickers are always using the lure of easy money to recruit young people who succumb to the temptation to run the risk of trafficking in the drugs on their behalf.
In this case, the 1st defendant’s role is the more serious of all the three defendants. She set out to recruit the 2nd and 3rd defendants; and not only that, she lured the 3rd defendant into the offence by, initially telling her that it was a job to help her do business in Australia.
Not only was she the recruiter, she was the main person of contact between the drug supplier and these two other defendants. She not only intended for them to bring the drugs, from China into Hong Kong but also to take the drugs from Hong Kong to Australia.
As has been correctly identified by all counsel, the sentencing guideline for trafficking in “Ice” or methamphetamine hydrochloride has been set down in the case of Ching Kwok Hung and the recommendation is that for trafficking in over 600 grammes a sentence of over 18 years is recommended.
In this case the 1st defendant was trafficking in 1.73 kilogrammes of “Ice” and the appropriate starting point, in my view, is one of 21 years’ imprisonment. Because of the international element in this case, which involves the importation of these drugs into Hong Kong and the intended exportation to Australia, the aggravating feature would merit an increase of 2 years’ imprisonment.
The fact of the matter was that the 1st defendant, as was pointed out by counsel for the 2nd defendant, Mr Yuen, only decided to plead guilty after the 2nd defendant did.
Mr Yuen has also pointed out that the 2nd defendant offered to give a non-prejudicial statement and an offer of assistance to give evidence in November last year and on 4 December he made a non-prejudicial statement. On December 14, the prosecution filed a notice to admit additional evidence which was the non-prejudicial statement of the 2nd defendant.
In that statement the 2nd defendant clearly said it was the 1st defendant who told him that the dangerous drugs were “Ice”. It was only after that that the 1st defendant indicated that she was going to plead guilty and then offered to give a non-prejudicial statement in January this year. But she still maintained that she only knew it was cannabis that was to be taken.
However, I do have to take into account that the prosecution decided that they were going to call her as a prosecution witness in the case against the 3rd defendant and it was only after that that there was a plea from the 3rd defendant.
So I have to take into -- yes?
MR McGOWAN: Sorry, my Lady, I’m sorry to interrupt you. Perhaps something that I didn’t -- should have made clear earlier. I was told by D1’s counsel that she was not going to maintain her claim that she believed it was cannabis to the hearing of -- or to the sentencing stage. And of course that’s not what Mr So has urged on you here. D1 has not sought to claim the same mitigation point as D3 has.
COURT: Yes. But in her non-prejudicial statement she claimed it was only cannabis.
MR McGOWAN: My Lady, that’s absolutely right, but there had been a correspondence or communication with -- between the two of us which resolved that before we got to the sentencing stage.
COURT: Yes, that’s right. That’s why my starting point is based on the “Ice”.
MR McGOWAN: Yes, certainly. Thank you, my Lady.
COURT: I therefore have to give some credit to the 1st defendant in view of this. So I will reduce the sentence by 40 per cent. So the sentence of 23 years is reduced by 40 per cent to 13 years and 9 months.
All right. Please sit down.
The 2nd defendant had pleaded guilty to Count 3 of the indictment for trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 0.59 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.58 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The 2nd defendant, after being stopped by the police at the Hong Kong International Airport, upon a search of his rucksack, a pair of blue jeans was found which blue jeans had been altered with a concealed pocket or pouch at the inner waist and the drug which is named in the count were discovered there.
Upon being cautioned, the 2nd defendant said it was the 1st defendant who told him to deliver the dangerous drug, “Ice”, from the airport to Australia, and would be given $10,000 as a reward after completion of this job and he did this out of a momentary greed.
The 2nd defendant in his video-recorded interview stated that when they were all in China the 1st defendant told him that the drugs was “Ice” and he did touch the pouches in the jeans and he said the resembled sand bags. The 2nd defendant refused to wear the jeans from China to Hong Kong because he said he only promised to deliver the drugs from Hong Kong to Australia so it was the 1st defendant who brought the drugs in his pair of jeans from China to Hong Kong. The street value of the drugs found on the 2nd defendant was in the region of HK$425,720.
The 2nd defendant is aged 23 and has a clear record. He is luckier than a lot of young people in Hong Kong because he comes from a good family and with hard-working parents. He created his own money problem because he apparently lost money in football gambling.
It is particularly tragic because in this day and age the 2nd defendant did not take full advantage of the good family and happy family that was given to him and instead indulged himself in gambling and leading to having to serve imprisonment because of his crime. It is a credit to his parents that they still, in these circumstances, stand behind him and still plead for leniency on his behalf.
As I have said in the case of the 1st defendant, whilst the court may have sympathy for his family and parents, this is not a factor that weighs very much as against the scale of the evil that this type of offence causes.
The 2nd defendant is charged with trafficking in 580 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride which falls under the sentencing guideline laid down in the case of Ching Kwok Hung for trafficking in between 300 to 600 grammes of “Ice” will merit a sentence of 14 to 18 years’ imprisonment.
The proper starting point, in my view, for 580 grammes would be 17½ years’ imprisonment. I take into account the fact that the 2nd defendant did not bring the drugs from China into Hong Kong and had intended only to help bring the drugs to Australia. So I will add 1 year for the international element in this as an aggravating factor to the sentence of 17½ years thus making a sentence of 18½ years.
I do take into account what I have said as to his assistance to the authorities in this case and the fact that it was after his non-prejudicial statement that the 1st defendant pleaded guilty. There is also his offer of assistance which was accepted by the prosecution to give evidence in the trial against the 3rd defendant. So I think in view of all this, he merits a reduction in sentence of 45 per cent, thus reducing the sentence to 10 years and 2 months.
The 2nd defendant, please sit.
The 3rd defendant, after the voir dire, decided to change her plea from not guilty to guilty to the re‑amended indictment, the 2nd count in the re-amended indictment that she was trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 0.59 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.57 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defendant upon being apprehended at the check-in counter at the Hong Kong International Airport was searched and nothing, no contraband was found in her rucksack. However, police rightly suspected she was involved in the drug trafficking and cautioned her. After being cautioned she confessed that the pair of jeans having the dangerous drugs was, she thought, she guessed, the one that she was told to wear from mainland China to Hong Kong.
She gave an account to the police in the video-recorded interview, quite a full account of how she was recruited by the 1st defendant to travel to Australia and she would be paid $10,000. She said that she travelled with the 1st and 2nd defendants to China on 31 January and spent a night in a guesthouse there in Dongguan. Then in the morning they were each given a pair of jeans to try on.
She noticed that sewn into the waist band of the jeans were pouches which contained, she said, “lumps of stuff”. She said that she touched them and found that these pouches were granular and she suspected these were dangerous drugs. She and the 1st defendant each wore a pair of those jeans for the journey from China to the Hong Kong airport.
The estimated retail value or street value of the “Ice” carried by the defendant, the 3rd defendant, to Hong Kong, was in the region of about HK$425,720. It is also admitted by the 3rd defendant that after arriving at the Hong Kong Airport she took off the pair of jeans with the drugs and placed it into the 1st defendant’s rucksack.
The 3rd defendant is aged 19 and has a clear record. I have no doubt, as Mr Donald pointed out that initially she was attracted by the job offer from the 1st defendant on Facebook and there was no mention initially about carrying drugs to Australia, only that it was a job of assisting the 1st defendant in Australia. But as events developed, it became clearer and clearer that this was a drug trafficking event. The 3rd defendant continued to assist.
The 3rd defendant can take advantage of the fact that she did plead guilty, though it came after the voir dire. To be fair to her, it was due to, as Mr Donald pointed out, the lateness of the decision of the Department of Justice that they intended to call the 1st and 2nd defendants that accounts for this late change of plea.
Similar to the 2nd defendant, the amount of drugs which the 3rd defendant pleaded guilty to comes under the guidelines of Ching Kwok Hung for trafficking in 300 to 600 grammes, the recommended sentence is between 14 to 18 years’ imprisonment. As in the case of 2nd defendant, I will adopt a starting point in this case of the 3rd defendant of 17½ years imprisonment.
The 3rd defendant wore the jeans and transported the drugs from China to Hong Kong, which is an aggravating factor and I will add 1 year imprisonment to the 17½ years making it 18½ years’ imprisonment. I accept that she did not know the exact nature of the drugs, although she knew it was dangerous drugs.
The evidence, or rather the non-prejudicial statement of the 1st defendant was that she told her it was cannabis. Second, as far as the 2nd defendant is concerned, he didn’t know if the 3rd defendant heard the 1st defendant telling him it was ice.
So, having considered this, I will reduce the sentence of 18½ years by 1½ years to take into account this so that the sentence will be reduced to 17 years.
I will give the 3rd defendant the full one-third discount for her plea, though it did come a little late. As I have said earlier, it is not entirely her fault.
So reducing the sentence of 17 years by one-third will thus leave a sentence of 11 years and 4 months.