HKSAR v. HUI SAU LING

HCCC 234/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 234 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant, Hui Sau-ling, pleaded guilty before me to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The offence took place on 8 December 2016, and it concerned 43.5 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 42.75 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’.

The facts admitted by the defendant reveal that on 8 December 2016, at around 7.30 pm, police officers who were conducting an anti-crime patrol saw the defendant standing outside the back entrance to Un Shing House, Un Chau Estate, in Cheung Sha Wan, she was intercepted. The officers searched the handbag carried by the defendant. They found a bag containing a total of 27 plastic bags of suspected dangerous drugs, later confirmed to be a total of 43.5 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 42.75 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The defendant was arrested for possession of a dangerous drug. Under caution, she said “Ah sir, I bought the dangerous drugs ‘Ice’ for my own consumption.” The defendant was also found in possession of four mobile phones and cash in the sum of $19,267.60.

In her video-recorded interview, the defendant said under caution inter alia that:

(i) On 7 December 2016, at around 7.30 pm, she spent $6,000 to buy the seized drugs for the her own consumption. She put the seized drugs in her handbag after she bought them and forgot to take them out.

(ii) When being asked why she appeared at the scene of arrest. She said on that night, she and her children went to the home of the defendant’s mother in Wong Tai Sin for dinner. As the defendant went out, police officers rushed towards the defendant and arrested her.

(iii) The defendant was unemployed and was relying on Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, CSSA, the cash seized from her was money which she has saved up. The money was for the living expenses of her family and children. She was living with her husband and three children. She did not have any income apart from receiving CSSA. Her husband was unemployed but sometimes did casual work as a vehicle attendant.

(iv) The defendant was living at Un Shing House, Un Chau Estate with her family.

(v) The defendant have been taking ‘Ice’ for 10 years. She took ‘Ice’ on a daily basis. Her husband was also drug user.

(vi) The mobile phones seized from her were for playing games and contacting her friends.

The dangerous drugs seized in this case had an estimated retail value of $14,529 at the time of seizure.

The defendant claims CSSA since May 1998. In 2016, the total approved CSSA amount received by the defendant’s family consisted of her husband and three children was around $10,000.

The defendant admits and accepts that she was trafficking in the dangerous drugs seized in this case.

The antecedent statement of the defendant tells me that she is now 46 years old and she was born in Hong Kong. She was unemployed at the time of her arrest. She is a CSSA recipient and she would receive CSSA payment of around $10,000 each month. In 1988, the defendant was convicted of two offences of using an identity card relating to another person, she was fined as a result. The defendant’s father has passed away and her mother is 70 years old. The defendant was married but her husband passed away. She was living with her boyfriend and two sons and a daughter at the time of arrest.

Ms Lo in mitigation draws my attention to three mitigation letters written respectively by the defendant, the defendant’s daughter and Father John Wotherspoon. Ms Lo in her written mitigation draws my attention to the personal circumstances of the defendant. Apart from the information revealed in the antecedent statement, Ms Lo tells me that the mother of the defendant is weak and sick.

As for the three children of the defendant, they are aged 15, 11 and 7. Ms Lo tells me that the defendant loves her children very much and she has been a filial daughter all along. As for the circumstances of the offence, Ms Lo submits that the defendant pleaded guilty at the committal stage on 24 July this year. Through her guilty plea, the defendant has saved court time and public resources and has demonstrated her remorse.

The children of the defendant are very upset because of the defendant’s arrest and detention. The family is falling apart because of the defendant’s arrest. The eldest daughter is now studying in a boarding school. As for the second son, he is also studying in another boarding school and the youngest son has to be taken by a foster family. Ms Lo submits that the defendant has already reflected upon herself long and deep. She is determined to turn a new leaf.

Ms Lo submits that part of the dangerous drugs seized was for the defendant’s own consumption. Of the drugs seized, Ms Lo submits that two to three packets were intended for the defendant’s own consumption and each packet weighs on average 1.75 grammes. Ms Lo tells me that the defendant was a drug addict of ‘Ice’ at the time of her arrest. She told the police in her video-recorded interview that she had been addicted to ‘Ice’ for more than 10 years and the urine test conducted by Correctional Services Department two days after the defendant’s arrest show a positive result. Ms Lo urges me to pass a lenient sentence on the defendant.

In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind the facts of this case, the quantity of the drugs and the nature of the drugs involved. I have great sympathy for the children of the defendant but the welfare of the defendant’s children was something she should have borne in mind before she committed the offence. This case concerned 42.75 grammes of ‘Ice’. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, set down the tariffs for trafficking in ‘Ice’. Between 10 to 70 grammes, a starting point after trial of 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. Given that this case involved 42.75 grammes of ‘Ice’, in my judgment, a starting of 9 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.

I accept what Ms Lo has told me that the defendant intended to consume two to three packets of drugs seized. Two to three packets of drugs represent a small quantity of the drugs seized in this case. I am prepared to give the defendant an additional reduction of 9 months’ imprisonment. That would bring the starting point of 9 years’ imprisonment down to 99 months’ imprisonment.

The defendant pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, she is entitled to a one-third reduction. That would further bring the sentence down to 5½ years’ imprisonment. Apart from the guilty plea of the defendant and that she intended to consume a small quantity of the drugs. There is no other mitigating factors which can reduce the sentence. The personal circumstances and the family difficulties as Ms Lo has told me do not count as mitigating factors.

For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 5½ years’ imprisonment.