HKSAR v. LEE WANG KEI, JERRY

HCCC 111/2023

[2023] HKCFI 3333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 111 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

__________________________________

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

__________________________________

COURT: The defendant was charged with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 168.91 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 168.61 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’. The drug was found inside a compartment of the defendant’s motorcycle in the vicinity of Lei Tung Estate in Aberdeen on 9 June 2021. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge before a magistrate at the committal proceedings on 24 April 2023 and was committed to this court for sentencing.

Facts

The facts giving rise to the offence are as follows. On 9 June 2021, shortly after 9.30 pm, the police conducted an anti-dangerous-drug operation in the vicinity of Lei Tung Estate, Aberdeen. The defendant was spotted driving a motorcycle along Lei Tung Estate Road. He was stopped and a search was conducted of him.

Upon search of the back compartment of the motorcycle, the police found a black jacket inside the compartment.

In the right front pocket of the black jacket, the police found a total of seven plastic bags containing a total of 27 plastic bags of suspected ‘Ice’. He then became emotional at this juncture and attempted to escape, but was subdued by the police.

A further search of the motorcycle resulted in the discovery of another plastic bag containing two plastic bags of suspected ‘Ice’ inside a black motorcycle glove found inside a motorcycle helmet placed in the compartment under the driver seat.

The total quantity of the drugs seized was subsequently found to be 168.61 grammes of ‘Ice’ in terms of narcotics, the street value of which was around $93,000 at the time.

Upon arrest and under caution, and in subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted trafficking in the dangerous drugs seized and he admitted that he was asked by someone in the upper line called ‘Lion’ to deliver those drugs for others. He admitted that Lion would call him for drug delivery around once a week and he was promised $150 for the delivery job. From the cash that had been seized from him, he admitted that $14,000 was proceeds from such drug trafficking activities.

The Defendant’s Background

The defendant is now 44 years old, studied up to Form 3. At the material time before the arrest, he worked as an electrician and decoration worker, earning about $33,000 per month. Because of the COVID pandemic, he was out of job at the time, hence his commission of the present offence.

In mitigation, Mr Yuen asked the court to find that the defendant’s role in the present case was that of a mere courier. Mr Yuen also sensibly accepts that the only real mitigating factor in the present case is the defendant’s guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.

Sentencing Considerations

The approach in relation to sentencing drug traffickers set out in Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 involving a six-step approach. The first step requires the court to assess the gravity of the offence by looking at the time and quantity of the drugs in question. The drugs involved here is ‘Ice’ and the tariff is set out in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691.

For an amount between 70 to 300 grammes of ‘Ice’, a starting point of between 11 and 15 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate. For the quantity of ‘Ice’ in question, namely, 168.61 grammes, adopting a strict mathematical calculation, the starting point of 152.4 months rounded down to 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate.

On the facts as admitted by the defendant, I am prepared to accept that he was acting as a mere courier for another in delivering drugs. Hence, there is no necessity to aggravate the defendant’s sentence on account of his role.

The next step requires the court to consider any other aggravating factors which may necessitate an enhancement of the starting point identified. I accept that there is no other aggravating factor present requiring such an enhancement.

The next step would be to consider factors in mitigation of the sentence. The only ground of mitigation is the defendant’s early plea and I am prepared to give him the full one-third discount. For that, this will bring the sentence down to one of 8 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

The final step of the sentencing approach is to step back and look at the overall sentence to see if it is just and fair. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the view that the ultimate sentence imposed of 8 years and 5 months’ imprisonment is appropriate and proportionate to the culpability of the defendant.

Hence, I hereby sentence you to imprisonment for 8 years and 5 months.