HKSAR v. LAU YEUK WA

HCCC 49/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 49 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug contrary to section (4)(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drug Ordinance.

You admitted that on 31 July 2014 at the 21st Floor of Ching Yu House, Ching Ho Estate, Sheung Shui, New Territories, you unlawfully trafficked in 27.3 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 26 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise commonly known as ‘Ice’.

On the day in question, police officers were on an anti‑dangerous drug operation at Ching Yu House. At about 8.15 pm that day, they saw you acting furtively at the lift lobby of the 21st floor. You were intercepted and a search was made upon you and your handbag. The drugs in the charge were found in your purse in your handbag.

Under caution you asked for a chance and admitted the substance was ‘Ice’ which you knew was a dangerous drug and that you had bought the drugs for your own consumption. When asked why you carried such a large quantity of ‘Ice’ for your own consumption, you repeated that it was for your own consumption but if there was surplus you would treat your friends to it. You were arrested and cautioned and again you said that you bought the ‘Ice’ so as to consume it with your friends for fun.

In the subsequent video-recorded interview, you said that you bought the drugs at about 6 pm that day in Temple Street and you were at Ching Yu House because you were looking for a friend Ah Yi because you intended to borrow money from her and you were a regular user of ‘Ice’.

The estimated market value of the ‘Ice’ at the time of the seizure is $12,200.

You are 31 years of age and have a child, a son aged 4, and have eight convictions, however one of those convictions was after you committed this offence.

Mr Phil Chau, your counsel, has mitigated thoroughly on your behalf and I have taken into account what he has had to say. The essence of his mitigation is that you did have most if not all of these drugs for your own consumption, although admittedly you would share some with your friends which you regard as social trafficking and if, and only if necessary, you might have sold some to further your own addition. However, as stated in the facts of this case you spent most of your money on drugs and, therefore, you went up to Ching Yu House looking for a friend to borrow money.

In support of the fact that you are drug dependent, he relies upon the medical memo from the Lo Wu Correctional Institute which was a report of a urine test taken soon after you committed this offence, that is, on 2nd August a urine test was conducted on you and the test yielded positive for the drug amphetamine which is ‘Ice’.

Furthermore, he asks this court to look at your criminal record and as can been seen in 2010, and separately in 2012, you were sentenced to the Drug Addition Treatment Centre. Of those convictions, two of them were for possession of dangerous drugs.

It is therefore submitted by Mr Chau, and which the prosecution does not object, that some of these drugs were for the defendant’s, if not all, for her own consumption.

Where defendants have pleaded guilty to charges of drug trafficking but all or part of the drugs are intended for the traffickers’ own consumption, then a discount should, depending on the circumstances, apply: I refer to the cases of HKSAR v Tsang Chung Keung CACC 165/2014; and HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang CACC 135/2011.

Taking into account the quantity of drugs involved, the proportion of the drugs intended for self-use, the nature of the drugs and the background of the criminal record of the defendant, I do consider a discount on the starting point of approximately 20 per cent to be appropriate.

Defendant, you committed this offence on 31 July 2014. By that time the new guidelines as laid down in Tam Yi Chun are applicable. Had you been convicted after trial, you would have been sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment. However, as I accept that most of the drugs were for your own consumption, I reduce that starting point by 20 per cent. So the starting point will now be reduced to one of 6 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, you shall be sentenced to a term of 4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

You were sentenced to 8 months imprisonment for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 30 July 2015. Mr Chau has tried to persuade the court to impose a partly concurrent sentence, although rightly he concedes that this is a separate and distinct offence. Quite correctly these are separate distinct offences and I would order that this present term be served consecutively to your term of 8 months’ imprisonment.