COURT: Defendant, Lau Kin, pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134, before a Magistrate, and is committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.
The facts admitted by the defendant
On 6 October 2022, the police mounted an anti-narcotics operation at Room B207, 1st Floor, 35 Ho Man Tin Street. I will just call that “the Room” and they laid ambush in its vicinity.
At about 8 pm the same day, police noticed the door was opened from inside the place. The defendant and a person named Mandy were seen standing at the doorway. The police then intercepted the defendant and Mandy. Upon entry, three mobile phones were found lying on the only bed inside the Room. The police executed a search warrant and conducted a search at the Room in the presence of defendant and Mandy.
After search, the following items, among other things, were found inside a white cupboard: Three yellow and blue lined bags containing a total of 743 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 723 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, I will call it ‘Ice’ in the future; a transparent plastic bag containing a transparent resealable plastic bag, containing 236 grammes of a crystalline solid, containing 235 grammes of ‘Ice’; two transparent glass containers, each with two openings, connected with a rubber tube and a glass tube; a plastic box with a blue cover, containing a metal spoon and 4.49 grammes of a crystalline solid, containing 4.36 grammes of ‘Ice’; a green sealer; large amount of resealable plastic bags; one electronic scale; and two lighters.
The defendant and Mandy were both arrested. Under caution, the defendant claimed that he was keeping the drugs for others in return for a reward of $6,000 per week, and that Mandy had nothing to do with the drugs.
A cautioned video-recorded interview was conducted with the defendant later. Under caution, the defendant stated, among other things, he came to know someone called ‘AK’ through a friend, and he agreed to keep the drug for AK for a reward of $6,000 per week. He was asked by AK to collect the drug, and he had to test and report the findings to AK with two flasks passed to him by someone under the instruction of AK.
Defendant was also required to repack the drug. He was told by AK to purchase an electronic scale, a sealer and resealable plastic bags for repacking. He had not met AK, and he did not know how he would be paid. Defendant said he was not a drug addict, and he worked as a casual worker earning $600 a day.
The estimated market value or price of the ‘Ice’ involved was HK$673,691.
The defendant admitted that at all material times, he trafficked in the drugs found inside the Room, namely, 983.49 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 962.36 grammes of ‘Ice’.
Background and mitigation
According to the antecedents statement, the defendant is now 56 years of age. He is not a man with a clear record. He had one conviction of soliciting an advantage and another conviction of public servant accepting an advantage. Both charges arose of the same case. He was fined a total of $1,500 in 2010.
The defendant was educated up to Form 5 level. He is married with one daughter. He worked as a waiter. Mr Roy Lau, counsel for the defendant, gave this Court some more information about the defendant. The defendant came to Hong Kong in about 1980. He and his wife had a daughter. He used to live with them and his aged mother in Lok Fu Estate. After a dispute with his wife, he moved out and lived alone in the Room in Ho Man Tin.
He worked as a hotel room attendant for about six months, earning about $6,000 to $15,000 a month. That was the job he described as a waiter in the antecedents statement. Before his arrest, he gave half of his income to support his family. His wife was a hotel worker, and his daughter was a university student.
The defendant committed the present offence as he wanted to make more money for his family. He is remorseful for his stupid deed. His daughter was so disappointed in him that she did not see him. His relationship with his wife had improved and she visited him regularly.
Regarding the defendant’s role, Mr Lau submitted that he was a courier and storekeeper. So at the lower end of the scale. He referred this Court to the six-step approach in the case of Herry Jane Yusuph, modified by Lee Ming Ho, and submitted a sentence of 14½ years would be appropriate.
Referring to the two previous convictions of the defendant, Mr Lau submitted that they are not drug-related and urged this Court not to place any weight on the record. The defendant wrote to this Court himself asking for leniency. He mentioned how he was facing financial pressure during the pandemic and he stupidly agreed to store dangerous drugs for others in order to support his aged mother and the daughter who was still a student.
After he was arrested, his daughter had to quit study and started to work. His family members still have not completely forgiven him. He stressed that he is remorseful and hoped this Court would treat him leniently.
Consideration of the sentence
Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence. A person convicted of this offence upon indictment is liable to imprisonment for life and a fine of $5 million. I will follow the six steps stated in Herry Jane Yusuph.
The first step. The quantity of ‘Ice’ involved here is 962.36 grammes. According to the case of Tam Yi Chun and Abdallah, this quantity falls under the bracket of between 600 to 1,200 grammes, with a starting point between 20 to 23 years. So on a mathematical calculation, the starting point would be about 21 years 9 months.
The defendant acted as a courier and a storekeeper in this case. He also helped testing and repacking of the ‘Ice’ before passing the drug to others. He was promised $6,000 per week. The defendant was a 54-year-old man who did not have previous conviction of drug-related offences.
Having considered the circumstances of the offence and the defendant’s role, I am of the view that a notional after trial starting point of 22 years is appropriate.
And then the next step, there are no aggravating factors to enhance the starting point and I will not place any weight on his previous convictions.
So I have now dealt with four points already. The fifth step is the mitigation. The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity and so he is entitled to a full one-third discount.
So the last step with the discount, the sentence is one of 14 years and 8 months. I am of the view this is a fair and just sentence in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
So for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the defendant is sentenced to 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.