The jury has found in respect of Count 1 that you unlawfully trafficked in 3,158.5 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride on 5 December 2019 at room 1802, 18th floor, Popway Hotel, No. 117 Chatham Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon.
In respect of Count 2, the jury have found you guilty on the same date at the same location that you used a Hong Kong ID card relating to another person, namely, Kwok Wing-sum, without reasonable excuse.
In respect of the facts of this case, on 5 December 2019 a team of police officers were instructed by their superior, Sergeant Ng, to go to the vicinity of the Popway Hotel in Tsim Sha Tsui to look for a person and a white private car bearing registration No. WC2169. They arrived in the vicinity at about 12.00 noon and took up observation posts in the area posing as passers-by. At about 1324 hours an officer saw the white private car bearing registration No. WC2169 parked at Austin Avenue. They saw the 2nd defendant in this trial alight from the driver’s seat of that vehicle.
I will just say at this part that the 2nd defendant was jointly charged with you on this 1st count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, and after trial the jury found him not guilty by a verdict of 6:2.
The 2nd defendant was observed to enter into the Popway Hotel. Shortly afterwards he came out and met up with you, the 1st defendant. From that moment on yourself, the 1st defendant, and the 2nd defendant, were kept under observation by various police officers in and around the vicinity of the hotel.
At about 1.55 pm that day you, 1st defendant, were observed carrying into the hotel a black recycle bag clasped under your arm and going into room 1802 of the hotel. At that time the 2nd defendant was with you. A short time later the 2nd defendant left the hotel room and went, which is admitted, to his car and retrieved from the boot of his car a black unicycle and a paper bag from the rear passenger seat of the car and went into the hotel.
Approximately an hour later a male whom the 2nd defendant went to collect from the lobby and went up into the hotel room to join you and the 2nd defendant. That male spent about nine and a half minutes in the hotel room and left. You and the 2nd defendant remained in the hotel room until about 4.00 pm and left together. You were then observed to return to the hotel at about 10.30 pm, with the 2nd defendant, at 10.30 pm that day.
You were intercepted on the 18th floor, which is where the room 1802 was, taken into the room and a search of the room was conducted by the police. Inside the room the drugs in the amount as stated in the charge was found. The majority of the drugs was found in a locked safe. The police had to retrieve a key from the manager of the hotel to open the safe as when you were asked for the safe number you remained silent.
Whilst inside room 1802, a woman police officer searched your belongings and found an ID card belonging to another, Kwok Wing-sum, that is the subject matter of Count 2. It was revealed that you had used this ID card to check into the hotel earlier that day at about 1.00 pm. You had presented the ID card to the hotel manager and presented yourself to be Kwok Wing-sum. You paid a deposit of $500 for the hotel room and signed the guest registration form as Kwok Wing-sum. At the time a room key was not available, and you later came back to get the room key and that was when the 2nd defendant was with you.
By reason of the jury’s verdict they have rejected your account on oath, your evidence, that you did not know that there were drugs inside the room. That was the main issue in this trial. They have found, clearly, that you knew there were drugs inside room 1802. It is clear from the evidence that you had hidden or concealed your identity when you checked into the hotel such that you would use this hotel to store dangerous drugs.
There is no dispute here, even on your evidence in this trial, that you brought those drugs up into that room, although, you say you did not know, but clearly the jury has rejected your account. The value of the drugs was very high. The value of the drugs had a retail value of $1.6 million. Of course, the amount, the quantity of the drugs, was extremely large of about 3,000 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is commonly known as ‘Ice’.
At the time of this offence you were 23 years of age. You are now 26 years of age. Despite your young age of 23 at the time of commission of this offence, you had already racked up some eight previous convictions. Admittedly, some of them were when you were very young, indeed. In 2017 you have two convictions related to dangerous drugs. You are not someone unfamiliar with drugs. Your counsel, Mr Leung, has not said much for you in mitigation, only to say that you are a young woman, aged 26 now, and asks for a concurrent term to be imposed in relation to the 2nd count.
For trafficking in dangerous drugs of this kind, methamphetamine hydrochloride, the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong has laid down guidelines for sentence for certain quantities of the drug, ‘Ice’. As you are well aware, trafficking in drugs is a very, very serious offence. For that reason the Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines for this offence.
Mr Leung, your counsel, has said he has made a calculation in respect of the amount of drugs that you had for trafficking would attract a sentence of 25 years and 1 month imprisonment.
Defendant, for the offence, Count 1, the guideline case is that of Abdallah because the quantities in this case of ‘Ice’ are large, and Tam Yi-chun is not the appropriate case. I see in this case that there are no aggravating factors, and there are no mitigating factors. Clearly, in this case, defendant, you were using the room to store the drugs for the purposes of trafficking.
In those circumstances, defendant, you are sentenced to a term of 25 years’ imprisonment. In respect of Count 2, I sentence you to 6 months’ imprisonment. That term shall run wholly concurrent to Count 1. Although it is a separate and distinct offence, the term on Count 1 is already a heavy and quite crushing sentence. Therefore, I do not propose to have that term run consecutive. You are, therefore, sentenced to a total term of 25 years’ imprisonment.
(Proceedings after 4.17 pm not required).