HKSAR v. LEE ERNEST AND ANOTHER

HCCC 305/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 305 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The 1st defendant and 2nd defendant have been convicted by a jury of trafficking in 1,400 grammes of ‘Ice’.

The facts of the case are that on 3 February 2016, four individuals who became the original four defendants in this trial were arrested at Hong Kong International Airport for trafficking in dangerous drugs. The dangerous drugs were contained in a small carry-on suitcase which the 4th defendant was intending to take to Japan by a flight upon which he had been booked by a shadowy figure, Lam Chung-to. That individual had connection with a person with whom the 1st defendant had frequent contact.

Over the roughly two-week period before the 3 February arrest, a series of WhatsApp messages had passed between the 1st defendant and the 4th defendant. From those messages, it transpired the 4th defendant may or did believe he was being asked to smuggle mobile phones both assembled and disassembled into Japan. All the information the 4th defendant had came from the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant was acquitted unanimously by the jury. The original 3rd defendant was acquitted at the end of the prosecution case by way of a directed verdict.

The role of the 1st defendant in this offence was to recruit the 4th defendant, a person whom he had apparently had an ongoing business relationship with. The 1st defendant then acted as a go-between providing information to the 4th defendant which I am satisfied originated in large part, although not completely, from another shadowy figure, named Ah Hau. That person was in quite constant contact with the 1st defendant and considerable contact with the 2nd defendant as the flight departure date of 3 February approached. The 1st defendant's role, therefore, was to be a middle man and he put considerable effort into that role and he will be sentenced on that basis.

The 2nd defendant's role was simpler. It had been to bring the unlocked suitcase containing the drugs to the airport and to provide, I am satisfied, some assurance to the success of the operation by remaining at the airport up to the point of time when the 4th defendant could be said to have embarked with the dangerous drugs. The 2nd defendant was also in frequent contact with the person, Ah Hau, in the days leading up to 3 February.

In respect of the 1st defendant, and adopting the guidelines in Tam Yi Chun, I take a starting point of sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment. Given the intended international element in the offence, I enhance that by one year only to 24 years’ imprisonment taking into account, perhaps over-generously, the fact that the export of the dangerous drugs was prevented by the intervention of the customs officers.

There are no material mitigating factors. D1's role as a husband and father are not matters of mitigation in a case such as this, nor his previous connection with a church or churches. He is sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment.

I take as a starting point of sentence for the 2nd defendant, 23 years' imprisonment, again with reference to the guidelines in Tam Yi Chun. I am satisfied the 2nd defendant was more than a courier and had a continuing role in ensuring the suitcase, the drugs and the 4th defendant left for Japan. That starting point is enhanced also by one year to 24 years' imprisonment because of the international element.

There again are no material mitigating factors and the 2nd defendant is sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment.