HKSAR v. LEE KWOK WAI AND OTHERS

 HCCC243/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 243 OF 2008

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

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

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

COURT:  I have to sentence you three men for trafficking in dangerous drugs. 

You were all involved in different ways in a sophisticated plan to move nearly 2 kilograms of Ice to Australia.  The actual weight of the drugs is 1,896 grammes. 

You were caught because your customer was in fact an undercover police officer from Australia.  He came to Hong Kong to buy Ice.  He had five meetings with you, Lee Kwok-wai.  At the last meeting he gave you a HK$170,000 in cash, and 10 minutes later you, Tam Kam-wah, you delivered the drugs to him in his hotel room. 

You, D3, Chan Kam-wing, you were present at the first and fourth meetings.  It must not be thought that your involvement was less because your presence was less.  The evidence establishes that you were the man running this enterprise, giving the orders and seeking to keep yourself at a distance from the execution of the plan and the risks involved in that.  The drugs that were provided had been expertly hidden and packed in facemasks.  You, D3, spoke in the meetings of how good a job had been done in respect of the packaging.  It was highly professional.  To lock up someone with the resources and expertise to achieve it is hopefully some blow to the international drug trade in Hong Kong.  Whether or not others stood behind you, D3, I will never know.  But even if they did, it would do little to mitigate the serious organising role that you played. 

You, Lee Kwok-wai, were the assistant of D3.  You translated for him at the meetings and did what he told you, teaching the undercover officer how to convert liquid Ice to crystal and receiving payment for the drugs.  But even you were not prepared to take the risk of delivering the drugs.  D2 was recruited for that and paid $5,000. 

The aggravation of planning to move this quantity of drugs across international borders is obvious.  Both you D1 and D3 knew full well the Ice was destined for Australia.  I appreciate that it did not get there, but that was nothing to do with you.  Your sentences will have to be enhanced accordingly. 

In your case, Tam Kam-wah, there is no direct evidence you knew the drugs were bound for Australia.  You were paid to make the delivery in Hong Kong.  Of course you would have been reckless as to the destination of the drugs, and that could justify some lesser enhancement.  But in the circumstances of this case I shall make no enhancement beyond the starting point I take. 

You will all know that sentencing in drug trafficking cases in Hong Kong is based on guidelines, which are based in turn on the weight and nature of the drug.  The guidelines for Ice run out at 600 grammes, attracting a starting point after trial of 18 years’ imprisonment.  I judge the right starting point in this case to be one of 22½ years. 

D2, I will deal with you first.  You pleaded guilty, you earn a one-third discount.  I will deal with you on the basis of what you said to the police, namely that you did not know the nature of the drug.  It follows that whilst you might not have known the actual nature of it you were reckless concerning it.  Adults who undertake to carry drugs being reckless attract the guideline sentence.  Many couriers are ignorant of the exact nature of what it is they are paid to carry.  The culpability is in the recklessness, and inevitably the nature of what you in fact carried will be the determining factor of the sentence.  Accordingly, in your case there will be a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. 

D1, I will deal with you next.  That starting point of 22½ years has to be enhanced to reflect the international element.  Enhancements in the region of 2 years at this level are to be expected.  Bearing in mind all I know about the case, I judge it right to increase your sentence to one of 24 years after trial, for which you have the one-third discount, giving a sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment.  

You, Chan Kam-wing, you fought the case in the teeth of overwhelming evidence.  I do not increase the sentence thereby, but there is no discount available to you.  Your decision to fight the case and turn your back on a discount in excess of 8 years is conduct I judge to be consistent with what I perceive to be your character and your criminal activity, namely that you are a man who saw it all as a business opportunity, willing to take risk for large potential gain if successful and exploit it.  In your case I take the same starting point of 22½ years, but I enhance that to reflect both the international element and your role in the matter.  I judge the right sentence in your case is one of 25 years’ imprisonment.  That is the sentence I pass.