HKSAR v. LEE PUI SZE, ANGLE

DCCC 1126/2023

[2025] HKDC 704

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1126 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The Defendant is convicted after trial for a charge of Trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.  The total quantity of the drugs was 7.45 g of a solid containing 6.56 g of cocaine.

Summary of facts.

3.  On 2 April 2023, at about 1:55 am, the Defendant got on to PW1’s taxi in Jordan and informed PW1 to take her to Hunghom Ka Wai Chuen Carpark  and then to Mongkok.

4.  As the taxi stopped in Hunghom Station Lane, PW2 on board a police vehicle saw the Defendant handed something to a male who then quickly went into Kai Wai Chuen Carpark

5.  The taxi was eventually told to stop.  During a search of the Defendant’s handbag, the drugs in question was found.  They were packed into 44 bags which were all identical and ready for resell and for re-distribution.  The Defendant also had $9,107.60 of cash with her.

6.  The Defendant said under caution that the drugs were for her own consumption.

7.  The estimate street value of the cocaine in powder form is $8,135.

8.  And crack cocaine is about HK$11,734.

Criminal record

9.  The Defendant has a clear record.

Background/Mitigation

10.  The Defendant is 52 years old, in her evidence, she said that she received education in Canada and returned to Hong Kong in 2015.

11.  She is married and her husband has been in Court throughout the trial.

12.  She worked as waiters/cleaner in restaurant.  She was laid off a day before her arrest.

13.  Her mother (72)  is suffering from Stage 4 Cancer and it is understood that her situation is not treatable.  There are medical report and letter from Doctor Chong to inform me that it was a matter of weeks that her mother will live.  In view of the long term sentence she is facing, it is unlikely that she will not be able to see her mother again.

14.  The Defendant in her letter today tells me that she is extremely remorseful and wishes to be at the bedside of her mother to comfort her.  She cannot bear the thought of losing her mother.

15.  Her father (78)  is now with her mother in Canada.  The Defendant is the only child in the family.

Sentence

16.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for the offence is that if life imprisonment and a fine of HK$5 million.

17.  As set out in the case of HKSAR v Henry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 1116, there is a 6-step approach in sentencing.

Step 1: The relevant guidelines

18.  The first step requires the Court to assess the gravity of the offence by looking at the type and quantity of the drug involved.  In the present case, there is one type of dangerous drug involved.  That is 7.45 g of a solid containing 6.56 g of cocaine.

19.  In the past, there were sentencing guideline from R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLRD 370 and AG v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342 (heroin tariffs is also applicable to cocaine).  However, since 5^th March this year, there is a revision of sentencing tariff in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang CACC  106/2022, given the quantity of the amount of drugs involved, it still falls into the same sentencing bracket of 2 to 5 years.

Step 2: The Defendant’s role and culpability

20.  In the present case, the Defendant was seen by PW1 and PW2 passing items to a male in Station Lane, I ruled in the verdict that she was delivering drugs to that male at the material time.

21.  All the drugs found from the Defendant were packed into very small size resealable plastic bags about 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm.  They were altogether 44 packets.  I ruled that they were from the same supplier and contained in similar quantity, as such they were ready for re-sell and for re-distribution into the market.

22.  The Defendant got on a taxi from Jordan then to Station Lane and en-route to Mongkok.  Her route to different destinations was to distribute/sell those drugs contained in her handbag.

23.  She was found in possession of about $9,000 cash inside the handbag.

24.  As such, the role of the Defendant was a direct street trafficker.  As said in para 64 of Henry Jane’s case, “actual or direct trafficking of dangerous drugs to others on the street is more serious then where a Defendant’s purpose cannot be proved or explained.”  The Defendant will be sentenced as a direct street trafficker.  In such circumstances, the notional starting should be enhanced by 6 months in view of her role and culpability.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guideline

25.  Given the role of the Defendant in the present case and in consideration of the quantity of the amount of drugs involved, it falls into the sentencing bracket of 2 to 5 years.  As to a narcotic content of 6.56 g of cocaine, the starting point is 3 years 11 months.

Step 4: Aggravating factor

26.  There is no aggravating factor in the present case.

Step 5: Mitigating factor

27.  The Defendant is 52 years old, she was unemployed at the time of the offence.  The defence provided medical report and letter from Canada to tell me that the mother‘s medical condition is untreatable, she only has weeks to live. The Defendant wishes to return to Canada to see her mother and to comfort her.

28.  In her own letter to this Court, the Defendant is now extremely remorseful, she never expects that this nasty illness would take her mother away so quickly.  The Defendant also told me that her mother has always reminded her not to touch any dangerous drugs.  She admitted that put this advice at the back of her mind completely after she returned to Hong Kong in 2015.

29.  She knows the consequences of getting into the world of dangerous drugs, she now is suffering from this consequence.

30.  When the Defendant committed the present offence, she should have known what would come after her when the police caught her.

31.  As said in paragraph 73 of Henry Jane Yusuph that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional.”  However, there is nothing in the present case that can be regarded as “exceptional”.

32.  In the present circumstances, I adopted a notional starting point of 3 years 11 month and increased the sentence by 6 months in view of her role as a direct street trafficker.  She arrives at 3 years 17 months.  The sentence is 4 years 5 months.  The Defendant does not entitle to any discount as she was convicted after trial.

Step 6 – Totality

33.  The final stage of the sentencing process is to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed to make sure that it is fair and just.  Taking into account of the circumstances of the offence and the submission on behalf of the Defendant, I am of the view that the sentence is appropriate and is not out of proportion to the Defendant’s overall criminality.

Sentence

34.  The sentence I impose on the Defendant is of 4 years 5 months.