HKSAR v. CHOI SIU LUN

HCCC 214/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 214 OF 2015

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate of a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case are simple. The defendant and his wife, who had joined a tour group for Sydney, were intercepted by Customs officers at the departure hall of the Hong Kong International Airport.

Upon search, four plastic bags containing 'Ice' were found wrapped around the defendant’s waist and thighs. It was 2,312 grammes of a power containing 2,252 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The defendant was arrested. Under caution, he admitted someone had tied the item for him in Shenzhen. In a subsequent interview, he said he owed a person a gambling debt of $90,000 and this person promised him that if he was to deliver something to Australia, his debt would be waived.

I was told that the defendant is 49 years of age. He has received education up to form 3 and had worked as a minibus driver. He is married and has a son born of a previous marriage.

The defendant is not a first-time offender. He had been convicted of the offence of abstracting electricity and two immigration offences as well as some driving offences. He has never committed a drug-related offence before.

Learned counsel for the defence, Mr Wong, urged me to take into account the defendant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and is full of remorse. The defendant is ready to take responsibility for his wrongdoing. Mr Wong also informed the court that the defendant was in great financial difficulties and it was in these circumstances that he agreed to do what he did.

The defendant’s wife has been suffering from psychiatric illness and has been undergoing treatment in the past two years. The defendant, being a minibus driver, was earning a humble income of about $6,000 a month. He was the sole breadwinner of the family. His business was seriously affected by the Occupy Central activities but he was still required to pay the rental for the minibus. As a result of all this and also for his gambling, he incurred debt and eventually was forced to commit the present offence.

Mr Wong stressed that the defendant has been co-operative during the investigation. He also asked me to note that apart from the latest convictions which were in relation to driving offences, the other convictions took place almost 30 years ago.

The dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was 'Ice'. The total narcotic content was 2,252 grammes. As the offence was committed on 21 December 2014, the case of HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun, CACC 524/2011, which was decided on 9 June 2014, is applicable.

In that case, the Court of Appeal held that there is no acceptable rationale for a distinction in sentencing in large quantities of 'Ice' on the one hand and large quantities of heroin on the other. It was therefore held that for trafficking in 'Ice', for a narcotic content of 600 grammes or more, the tariff as prescribed in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 for that quantity is applicable. In Abdallah, the Court of Appeal held that in a case of trafficking in heroin, if the narcotic content was 1,200 grammes to 4,000 grammes, the sentence should be 23 to 26 years’ imprisonment.

It was further held that an international element in trafficking, whether by importation or by exportation, is to be regarded as a factor in material aggravation. In the present case, the defendant brought the dangerous drug from Shenzhen with the intent to bringing it to Sydney. Having heard counsel who stressed the limited role of the defendant, I am of the view that the starting point should be, for this reason, enhanced by 2 years.

In my judgment, an ultimate starting point of 26 years is appropriate in this case.

The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for his guilty plea. In all the circumstances, bearing in mind what learned counsel told me, I am prepared to give the defendant a further discount of 4 months.

Will the defendant please stand up. For the said reasons, I sentence you to 17 years’ imprisonment for the offence.