HKSAR v. LIU WING YEE, WINNIE

HCCC 39/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 39 OF 2015

_______________

_______________

_______________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
_______________

1.  The defendant is a young woman of 25 years of age who rather foolishly got involved with a bad crowd and now has to face the consequences of this association by admitting her guilt to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug. Both offences occurred on 23 August 2014 and involved quantities of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as Ice. The quantity in the first offence was 1.76 g and in the second offence was 465.32 g. The street value of the drugs was $782,847.

2.  The facts agreed by the defendant upon her plea of guilty were that in the afternoon of 23 August 2014, she was stopped by police officers who searched her.  The officers found in her handbag a snack box containing two resealable transparent plastic bags with the quantity of Ice as specified in the first offence.  After being arrested and cautioned she told the officers that: “It was Leo who asked me to deliver them to others.”

3.  The police officers also found a bunch of three keys which the defendant explained were to her residence.  She was taken back to her residence by the police who gained entry into the flat by using the keys found on her.  A search of the defendant’s bedroom uncovered various items used in the trading of drugs, such as an electronic scale, a quantity of large and small resealable transparent plastic bags and 65 resealable transparent plastic bags containing Ice consisting of a total quantity as specified in the second offence.

4.  The defendant was taken back to the Wong Tai Sin police station where she was interviewed under caution by video recording.  She stated that it was Leon (not Leo) who asked her to pack the drugs inside her room and then deliver them to various locations in Mongkok and Tsim Sha Tsui.  She met Leon through a friend at a time when she was looking for work.  She did not know Leon’s full name and could only contact him by phone.  She explained she had forgotten his number but had it stored on her phone.  She said that Leon had rented the room for her since March 2014 for packaging the drugs.  After she packaged the drugs, she would then leave them at locations in Mongkok and Tsim Sha Tsui as instructed by Leon.  She would just leave the drugs at the specified locations but would not come into physical contact with any person.  She said she received $500 to $600 a day as a reward for packaging and delivering the drugs.  The money was paid to her by Leon depositing the rent and her reward into her bank account.  She acknowledged that she knew she was delivering drugs but claimed that she did not know what kind they were.

5.  The defendant is single and at the time of the offence was living with her mother and sister.  Her parents had divorced some 10 years ago.  She is never been in trouble with the law before and appears to have a close relationship with her mother and sister.  She suffers with epilepsy and that has affected her learning development and in turn her prospects for employment.  She attended primary school from 1998 to 2003 and went to secondary school from 2003 to 2008 when she left, having completed secondary five level.  She was then employed as a boutique sales representative for five years but from October 2013 was unemployed.  It would appear it was then that things went wrong for her and she started to mix with a bad crowd who introduced her to drugs.

6.  As is apparent from the facts agreed to by the defendant on her plea of guilty to the two offences, she was seriously involved in the drug trade.  She used a flat that had been set up specifically for her to package drugs.  She would package the drugs and then drop them off at various locations as instructed.  She was rewarded for her involvement by the payment of the rent and a fee for packaging and delivering the drugs. 

7.  A medical report has been submitted on her behalf setting out her medical history and problems with epilepsy and learning development.  It has been submitted that because of her illness and learning impairment she is gullible and easily influenced by others.  She also felt the pressure of living with a single mother and suffered with depression from time to time. 

8.  I accept the submissions made on behalf of the defendant as to her personal circumstances and her involvement in these offences.  In particular, I accept that she is a person of low intelligence who is easily influenced by others and this brought about her involvement in the offences.  However, she would have appreciated that she was committing a terrible wrong and that is evidenced by her remorse and regret as displayed on and after her apprehension for these offences. 

9.  On 9 June 2014 just prior to the commission of this offence, the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, handed down a new set of guidelines for trafficking in Ice.  The previous sentencing guidelines for Ice were brought into line with those fixed for heroin, the Court noting that there was no acceptable rationale for a distinction in the penalty to be imposed between the two types of drugs.

10.  Rather than sentence the defendant on the basis of two separate offences, I will combine the drugs involved and sentence her on the total quantity of drugs involved of 467.08 g according to the tariff case. I consider that the two offences arise out of the one set of circumstances. The quantity of drugs in the first offence was relatively small compared to the quantity of drugs involved in the second offence which reflected the main operation for the packaging and distribution of the drugs.  The first offence evidenced the defendant making the delivery of the drugs as admitted by her. 

11.  The revised guideline for starting points for trafficking in Ice after trial between 300 and 600 g is 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment.  For the quantity of drugs involved in this offence a starting point after trial is 17 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.  I will adjust the starting point to 16 years and 9 months’ imprisonment as an act of leniency for her personal background and circumstances as supported by the medical evidence of the defendant and personal accounts from others about her.  The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for her plea of guilty, which will reduce her sentence to 11 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. 

12.  This will be reflected by imposing a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment on the first offence, which will run partially consecutively as to 3 months’ imprisonment to the sentence on the second offence of 10 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.  The resultant sentence is 11 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.