CRIMINAL CASE NO. 388 OF 2009
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty on 10 August 2010 to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The drug was 3,986.60 grammes of a mixture. The narcotic quantity was 3,927.10 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as “Ice”.
The facts admitted by the defendant showed that he checked in at the airport for an Air Philippines flight to the Philippines at about 8 o'clock with one suitcase. When the suitcase was X-rayed about 45 minutes later, irregularities were seen in the suitcase. The defendant was identified and escorted for a search. He had the key to and knew the combination of the suitcase lock. When the bag was examined by Customs officers, a false compartment was revealed and 13 packets of suspected dangerous drug were found in the side.
On arrest and under caution, the defendant said the suitcase was given to him in Shenzhen and he was to be paid 80,000 pesos if he delivered the suitcase to the Philippines. In a later video interview, he said that he worked as a driver for a Chinese male called Carlos who had promised him a reward for bringing a suitcase to the Philippines. Carlos’s wife gave him the air tickets and cash.
He stayed six nights in Shenzhen and on the day before he travelled to Hong Kong, a Malaysian man gave him the suitcase. He travelled from Shenzhen to the airport in Hong Kong by taxi.
The Government Chemist analysed the drugs and established that they were the type and quantities set out in the particulars of the charge. The estimated street value at the pertinent time was $2,631,156.
The defendant admitted in court that he was in possession of the dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
The defendant has no previous record in Hong Kong. I was advised that he is a Philippine national, age 53. He had been living with his wife and two daughters aged 18 and 14 in Cavite. He claimed he was a marine engineer, by which he appears to mean that he had qualifications as a seaman and had worked as such but for a very short time, a long time previously. He stopped that work when he developed hypertension. He ran a small shop and drove a passenger jeep. I am advised that the shop enterprise failed about six months before the arrest. His income for both enterprises, when they were operating, was 2,200 pesos a month.
Various documents were put before me to show that the defendant was working as a driver in the Philippines and that he was a person of good character, according to his District Clearance Office.
I was advised by counsel that the defendant’s health was not good and that might have suffered a stroke in July 2009. His left arm was useless and he slurred his words. A medical report dated 29 April 2010 was produced and an updated report was sought before sentencing. That report, which is dated 13 August 2010, confirms that the defendant had hypertension which was discovered and treated in September 2009. (There is an error in the memorandum which says 2010.) He was later admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital for further management of that condition and was placed on medication to treat it. He was on follow-up from a visiting medical specialist at Lai Chi Kok after that.
On 6 April 2010, the defendant was admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital for management of his stroke. It was complicated by left side hemiplegia and slurring of his speech. He was also found to have electrolytic disturbance, a polyp of the gallbladder and impaired liver function for which treatment was given. He was also found to have a broken toe. He was released from hospital on that occasion on 28 May 2010.
Part of the problem appears to have been that the defendant spoke very little English and that the medical treatment was given without a Tagalog interpreter being available. The Medical Officer confirms that at present his current health condition is considered satisfactory and that he will be followed-up for medical treatment as necessary.
Having considered the medical report and taken it into account, I note that there is nothing so serious about his medical condition or conditions that should affect the nature or length of his sentence. The most significant mitigation in his case is the defendant’s plea of guilty which I consider was a timely plea and for which he is entitled to the full discount.
Under the guidelines in Attorney-General v Ching Kwok Hung [1992] 2 HKLR 125 which relate to sentences for “Ice”, a quantity over 600 grammes attracts a sentence of 18 years and upwards. There should also be an enhancement for the importation element, according to the case of Hong Kong SAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437.
In this case, I take a starting point of 21 years. I enhance it by 1 year to 22 years to take into account the importation element. I give a full discount of one-third which reduces the sentence to 14 years and 8 months' imprisonment. I reduce that by a further 8 months, taking into account the difficulties that will be occasioned by his medical conditions whilst in prison. The total sentence is 14 years imprisonment.