HKSAR v. ISKANDAR

CACC 239/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 75 OF 2002)

______________

______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Stuart-Moore VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 6 May 2002, the Applicant (D1), aged twenty-four, confirmed the plea of guilty he had entered in the Magistrates' Court when he appeared before V. Bokhary J in the Court of First Instance on a charge of trafficking in a crystalline solid containing over 3.8 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride ('ice'). The judge imposed a sentence of sixteen years' imprisonment on D1 against which he now seeks leave to appeal.

2. The facts were straightforward. The Applicant, an Indonesian, arrived in Hong Kong on 3 September 2001 with D2 and another man, both Indonesians also, on a flight from Jakarta. They checked into two rooms in a hotel in Tsim Sha Tsui. The room occupied by D1 and D2 was kept under surveillance by Customs officers.

3. On the next day, a man arrived at the hotel carrying a suitcase and went into D1 and D2's room. He emerged some minutes later without the case.

4. Approximately two hours later, the three Indonesians, including D1, left the hotel with their luggage and went by taxi to the airport. At the airport they completed the check-in formalities for a flight to take them back to Jakarta. They then proceeded to go through the Immigration clearance desk where D1 was removed from the queue and was taken to a room to be searched. He was found to have eight plastic bags of 'ice' strapped to his legs and abdomen. D2 had seven similar bags strapped to him. D1 admitted that he and his accomplice, D2, had received the 'ice' from the man who had visited their hotel. They had repacked the drugs into smaller bags and had helped each other to tape them onto their bodies. They were intending to export the drugs from Hong Kong to Indonesia.

5. The judge took a starting point of twenty-five years' imprisonment which she then discounted by slightly over a third, reducing the sentence in the light of the mitigation to sixteen years' imprisonment.

6. The sentence was wholly appropriate. This was a serious exercise in drug trafficking which was the sole reason for D1 being in Hong Kong at all. Those who engage in international trafficking of this kind must be aware that Hong Kong adopts a severe sentencing policy in such cases. There has been a consistent message to such an effect for a long time. This application has provided no reason to depart from the usual tariff which a trafficker of 'ice' in this quantity should expect to receive.

7. The application is dismissed.