|
HCCC 52/2017
[2018] HKCFI 1424
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 52 OF 2017
-----------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
LAW Kam-yuen (A2) |
|
-----------------
| Before: |
Hon Andrew Chan J |
| Date: |
14 May 2018 at 2.33 pm |
| Present: |
Mr Phil Chau and Mr Li Chun-ngai Martin, on fiat, for
HKSAR |
| |
Mr Lee Jo-Ey Joseph, instructed by Cheung & Liu,
for the accused |
| Offence: |
(1) Conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug (串謀販運危險藥物) |
|
(2) Attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug (企圖販運危險藥物) |
-------------------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
-------------------------------------------
COURT:
The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug.
Summary of Facts revealed the followings.
In the afternoon of 27 January 2016, when customs officers conducted a check on an inbound container from Panama, allegedly carrying with it 200 bags of cocoa beans, they discovered 45 blocks, 32 kilogrammes of cocaine hidden in two of the bags.
The street value was estimated to be about HK$47 million.
A controlled delivery operation was mounted in the morning of 29 January 2016. The defendant was seen, together with another male, Mr Arias, arriving at one container yard where the container was temporarily stored under the watchful eyes of the customs officers.
Mr Arias crawled into the container and took out two bags of cocoa beans which supposedly containing the 45 blocks of cocaine. Both Mr Arias and the defendant was arrested by customs officers.
A search of the defendant’s residence yield the seizure of one tenancy agreement of one apartment at the Latitude, 238 Prince Edward Road, San Po Kong. Upon entry of the Latitude apartment, customs officers found paraphernalia suspected to be used for manufacturing dangerous drugs. The equipment found indicated that the apartment had been used, not just as a distributing centre, but a manufacturing base.
Be that as it may, since the defendant is not charged for that, he will not be sentenced on that basis. However, it does indicate the extensive involvement of the defendant in this drug operation.
Mr Law is now 23 and has no criminal record in Hong Kong. He graduated in 2015 from the IVE with a Higher Diploma in Multimedia Game and Animation, I believe. According to the defendant, his father was then diagnosed with liver cancer, and that several hundred thousand dollars were needed to meet the medical expenses. He was introduced by his friends to be involved in the transportation of these drugs. He now regrets very much of his wrongdoing.
Although the defendant is charged with an attempted offence, in reality, what the defendant did on the relevant date was of no difference from committing the substantive offence. He and Mr Arias went to the container yard and retrieved and inspected the cocaine in question.
Now, with the equipment found in the Latitude apartment, the defendant’s involvement, in my view, went beyond simply transportation. The value of the drugs was substantial. It is therefore doubtful of the defendant’s assertion that he was simply introduced into this trade by his friend.
Given the above, the defendant will be sentenced on the same basis as the substantive offence. Guidelines on sentencing are clear. The starting point for trafficking 15 kilogrammes of cocaine is one of 30 years’ imprisonment and any quantity beyond that would be at the discretion of the sentencing judge.
Given the amount of cocaine involved, namely 32 kilogrammes, and in line with the sentence given to Mr Arias, an additional 2 years will be given.
Likewise, in this case, cocaine had been shipped from Panama, all the way to Hong Kong, and as such, an additional 2 years will be added, will be given for this international element.
In summary, the starting point is set at 34 years’ imprisonment. That is 408 months. The defendant indicated his plea after a trial date had been set by the listing judge and before the first trial date.
In accordance with the revised practice promulgated in HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1, and in view of what is stated, in particular at paragraph 236, the defendant will be given a discount of 23 per cent in this case.
As such, for the offence the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to 26 years’ imprisonment. I believe that is 314 months.
MR CHAU: 312.
COURT: 312, yes. 312, sorry. I skip the two months.
MR CHAU: Sorry, the final sentence is 26 years, so that’s 312.
COURT: Yes, 312.
MR CHAU: Thank you.
COURT: But if you -- 408 and then a discount of 23, I believe that will take us to 314.
MR CHAU: Yes. And then an extra two months.
COURT: Yes, an extra two months.
MR CHAU: Thank you.
COURT: Well, first of all, is my mathematics correct?
MR LEE: Yes.
COURT: Right.
MR LEE: That is 408, 23% will be around 314, an extra discount of two months will be 312, which is 26 years.
COURT: Yes.
MR LEE: Thank you.
|