The operation is, I agree with counsel, not a sophisticated one. It basically involves distilling the solution down to get the drugs which had been embedded in the bottles of solution.
Now, this is becoming a regular form of importing the drugs into Hong Kong because the drug traffickers know that if they import it in the powder or crystal form, it is easy to detect. So drugs are hidden inside cans, inside bottles of solution in order to evade detection when they are imported into Hong Kong.
Now, in this case of course there is no evidence that the drugs that were being handled at the flat was imported. I have to accept that. So there is no international element in that sense.
However, it is a very serious offence because the amount of -- the quantity of pure methamphetamine hydrochloride which was being processed, if gone undetected, would have caused much misery in the lives of Hong Kong people, families with drug addicts. And therefore the government and the judiciary takes a very serious view of people who indulge in this crime.
It is a nefarious and evil activity. Of course, all the defendants have families whom they love. Well, equally the people in Hong Kong have families whom they love and the only thing we can do because of our open borders is the hard work of our law enforcement frontline, members of the police and the customs who work hard night and day in order to stop this evil trade from coming into Hong Kong. However, it does not deter people who are tempted by the offer of perhaps wealth and easy money and this is an ongoing fight and for every battle won there is 10 lost.
Now, in the case of these three defendants, the 1st defendant lent or rather used his flat to have these drugs manufactured. As I said, it is not a sophisticated operation and the fact is that he then had the 2nd defendant who came to Hong Kong and presumably must have some experience because in the evidence, you can see him going to Aeon and Ikea and particularly at Aeon was very, I would say, very concerned about the type of pots that should be used and the size of them. So clearly he had some knowledge which he brought into Hong Kong about what kind of pots to use for the successful distillation of these drugs.
Then we have the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant had only arrived in Hong Kong the day before her arrest. However, all she seemed to have done was to go to the flat and sit there for over two hours whilst the drug was being manufactured. We do not know what was going on inside the flat and what her particular role is but certainly on the findings of the jury, they have found that she was also involved in this conspiracy to manufacture dangerous drug.
The fact is, it is always sad to send mothers and fathers to gaol for a long time. However, I have to balance all of that with the detrimental effect of these drugs in Hong Kong and so deterrent sentences are always ultimately necessary.
As all counsel have noted, the Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs and for trafficking in methamphetamine hydrochloride, the case of Abdallah has suggested a guideline sentence: if trafficking between 4,000 grammes to 15,000 grammes, a guideline sentence of 26 to 30 years is recommended.
Now, as has been properly correctly noted by Mr Arthur, manufacturing is more serious than trafficking. And as also been noted in the case that Mr Arthur has submitted to this court, in sentencing the court has to look, apart from the quantity of the drugs which is highly relevant, the other factors would be the scale of the operation, the capacity of the equipment and whether the manufacturing station had been producing or is likely to produce substantial quantities of dangerous drugs and the role played by each defendant.
Now, there is no question that a substantial quantity was being manufactured in this case. But it is an operation that, by its very nature, has to be mobile because of the smell created by this type of operation. So you would not expect in this type of operation to have huge vats and equipment set up in a residential block.
So admittedly it is not a sophisticated operation and it has not been going on for a long time because as can be seen, the date of the charge and also the fact that the 3rd defendant only arrived the day before and the 2nd defendant only a week or so before. So the whole operation is not one that I would classify as highly sophisticated. However, the quantity of drugs is high.
If this was a trafficking case, I would say that under the guidelines, the starting point sentence would be one of 26 years. But because manufacturing is more serious, I would add 2 years to that, making it 28 years.
Now, the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant lent his apartment or used his apartment for this manufacturing process. He not only did that, but he sent his 15-year-old daughter to take the 2nd defendant to look for pots in Aeon. He then got her to carry out a parcel which is suspected to have contained these bottles of solution containing dangerous drugs but there is not sufficient evidence of that, so I will not take that into consideration.
But, however, it is obviously an irresistible inference that the 1st defendant must have known that the pots that the 2nd defendant was looking for was to be used for the purpose of manufacturing and yet he sent his 15-year-old daughter to assist. I think in these circumstances sections 56A subsection 2(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance must apply for using a minor in the commission of the offence because his daughter was only 15 years old.
I would give him the benefit of the doubt, however, that I do not know if he knew the parcel itself may have contained dangerous drugs but I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that. So I will only increase the sentence by 1 year to 29 years’ imprisonment.
Now the 2nd defendant came to Hong Kong. Mr Hotten has tried to persuade this court that he came on a genuine exercise to recover a loan. Well, as I have said, the jury obviously has not accepted that story.
It is clear that the 2nd defendant came to Hong Kong using his expertise to shop for the suitable pots in order to distil the drugs. He took two days to shop for the pots. He went to Aeon, he went finally to Ikea where he located the right pots and thus the manufacturing began. He came to Hong Kong as a tourist and he has thus abused the hospitality of the local people by coming here to commit a crime. So under those circumstances, I consider that 28 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
I know, as Mr Hotten says, well he is a foreigner, he would spend a lot of time in Hong Kong away from his family. Well, this is his choice and there is nothing I can do about that. And Mr Hotten suggested that well, the trial had been delayed because of the COVID situation, well, his time in custody will be taken into account by the Correctional Services.
Now, finally, in relation to the 3rd accused, she came to Hong Kong the day before her arrest and her evidence before the jury was she came for shopping. However, even according to her evidence she did not do very much of that. She hung around the hotel but ultimately was found in the 1st accused’s apartment where she had stayed, according to the CCTV, for some over two hours at the time when the pots was boiling.
I do not know what role she played and I am not about to speculate but certainly, as the jury found, she was part of the conspiracy to manufacture. It is serious and I see no difference in her role because the fact is she was there at the time when the operation was at its climax and what part she played, unfortunately we do not know, and I see no reason to find her to be in a lesser role than the 2nd defendant. So I will also impose a similar sentence of 28 years.