HKSAR v. CHAN WAI MING

HCCC 251/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 251 OF 2014

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: You have pleaded guilty to a very serious charge. That is a single charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, being 2.8 kilograms of solid containing 2.21 kilograms of heroin hydrochloride.

What happened is as follows. On 25 January of last year, the Customs and Excise Department and the police mounted a joint operation at the Hong Kong International Airport. At about 3.40 pm, you were seen pushing a trolley carrying two suitcases and a shoulder bag, and you were intercepted by a Customs officer upon your arrival on a flight from Vietnam. The suitcases were searched, and one contained eight packages of soap, each package containing six, 48 pieces of soap in total. When one bar of soap was cut open, PW1 found inside a blue plastic sheet wrapping a white powder that was suspected to be dangerous drugs. Initial drug tests raised the suspicion that it was cocaine.

You were arrested by DPC3796 who is PW3. Under caution, you said, “Someone in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam gave me HK$20,000 and asked me to take the goods in the soap into Hong Kong.” You subsequently signed on the arresting officer’s notebook to confirm the accuracy and voluntariness of that cautioned statement.

A home search revealed electronic ticket for a flight to Australia on 27 January there.

Later, analysis showed the soaps to contain 2.21 kilograms of heroin hydrochloride. The estimated retail value of the heroin carried by you was some $2,175,600. You were aware of the fact you were bringing drugs into Hong Kong.

You admit to one previous conviction. That is for a totally dissimilar matter, a very minor matter in 1976, and for the purpose of sentence, I shall disregard that entirely. In short, I am regarding you as a person of hitherto clear record.

Mr Tracy on your behalf indicates that you accept the contents of the antecedent statement. That tells me that you are aged 57, a Hong Kong identity card holder, and you were born in Cambodia. The extent of your education is merely primary school education in Cambodia. I am told that you have been unemployed since 2009 and you are not presently in receipt of CSSA. I am also told that you are not regarded as a drug addict and you are in good health. You have been married twice in the past and twice divorced. You have a daughter aged 31 and a son aged 19.

One important aspect of this case is a very fair concession by Mr Parry on behalf of the prosecution that you have been exceptionally co-operative with the authorities in this case. The information that you have supplied has been of some assistance. I do not intend to elaborate further on that matter.

Mr Tracy on your behalf entered mitigation. He took me through the history of your earlier life and your movements within Cambodia to Hong Kong, the time that you went to France and coming back to Hong Kong. I do not feel it necessary to repeat that information. Suffice it to say that there had been periods in Hong Kong when you had prospered and run businesses. The textile business that you had established faltered not by your own fault but because your family in France decided to end that business, then move to Australia. The property you had acquired seems to have been lost. I understand that at some stage you became involved in gambling.

Mr Tracy very properly referred me to the guidelines on sentence, in this case the amounts or the quantum of drug being of very great significance, quite rightly identified the usual starting point as being one of about 24 years. Then of course there is the international aspect of this case, the bringing-in of the drugs and the implication that you were going to take them out to Australia.

On your behalf, Mr Tracy stressed your relatively clear record, that in Hong Kong you had lived and prospered for a while and contributed towards society, asked me to take that into account. Whilst I do acknowledge that and I do treat you as a person of hitherto clear record for the purpose of sentence, I cannot place you as a person with a positive good record.

Mr Tracy did go on to emphasise how you tried to assist the authorities, that the information provided had been of some assistance to the police, that this was given freely and expeditiously to the police. This of course, as I said, was supported by Mr Parry, who appears on behalf of the prosecution, very fairly. And I regard that as being important. This of course sits alongside your plea of guilty. That of course provides the major mitigation. And as I indicated during mitigation, you will receive a full one-third discount for that plea.

Taking these factors into account, I will take a starting point in this case of 22 years’ imprisonment. That will be enhanced by 2 and a half years for the international aspect. You will then receive one-third discount for your plea of guilty. You will therefore go to prison for 16 years and 4 months which is 196 months’ imprisonment.