|
HCCC 189/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 189 OF 2013
-----------------
-----------------
| Date: |
2 December 2013 at 10.19 am |
| Present: |
Mr Bobby Cheung, SPP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Andrew Humphrey Bullet, instructed by Tse Yuen Ting Wong, for the accused |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug(販運危險藥物) |
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
COURT: The defendant, Ms Tang Sze-lam, pleads guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of theDangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. The particulars of the offence are that the defendant, on the 5th day of January this year, near the injunction of Bute Street and Shanghai Street, Mongkok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 92.30 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 57.91 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Facts Admitted
On 5 January 2013, at about 0037 hours, the defendant was stopped and searched by police officers at the junction of Bute Street and Shanghai Street. Inside the paper bag carried by the defendant there were snacks and a paper box containing a transparent resealable plastic bag.
Inside the transparent resealable plastic bag there were two layers of transparent resealable plastic bags containing the dangerous drugs set out in the charge which were 92.30 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 57.91 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly called “Ice”.
On being arrested and cautioned the defendant said she had nothing to say. In a video-recorded interview subsequently conducted the defendant said that she did not want to talk about the dangerous drug but said that she had been a bartender earning $9,000 a month and was fired a week before the arrest. She had no habit of taking dangerous drugs and had no fixed abode.
The value of the “Ice” in question in January 2013 was estimated to be HK$66,363.
Criminal Record
The defendant has seven previous convictions of which two were for possession of a dangerous drug. She was last convicted of theft on 26 November 2009 for which she was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.
Mitigation
The defendant is aged 23, born to a single mother family. The defendant does not know who her father is. As the defendant did not get along well with the mother, she was brought up by her grandmother.
She left the family at the age of 14 and had worked as a waitress, a cook, in a hair salon, and in the pet shop owned by her mother. She lost her job shortly before the offence and committed the offence because of financial pressure.
Counsel for the defendant points out that the defendant is an articulate and intelligent person. Although she has a rather poor record, it involves only minor offences. The defendant managed to complete Form 5 education in prison and had quit abusing dangerous drugs after her last discharge from Drug Addiction Treatment Centre in 2010.
The counsel for the defence submits a mitigation letter of the defendant. The defendant says in the letter that she has let her mother down many, many times and her family has given her up. She has now learned a bitter lesson and is determined to mend the relationship with her mother and to study in prison to better equip herself for her future life. She asks for leniency.
Counsel for the defendant points out that the present case falls within the band of 7 to 10 years’ imprisonment according to the sentencing tariffs. He asks the court to adopt a starting point of 9 years’ imprisonment.
Sentence
The Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guidelines for trafficking in “Ice” in the case AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125. For a quantity of 10 to 70 grammes of “Ice” the starting point is 7 to 10 years’ imprisonment. The amount of “Ice” involved in the present case is 57.91 grammes. The starting point is therefore 9 years 4 months’ imprisonment.
The defendant has had a rather unpleasant childhood, not knowing who the father is and did not get along well with the mother. In a case of such a serious nature as the present one, this counts very little, if any, towards mitigation.
The defendant basically committed the offence because of economic reasons which of course can never be a valid factor of mitigation. The court is of the view that there is no reason not to follow the sentencing guidelines, thus adopting 9 years 4 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.
Giving credit to the defendant for her plea of guilty, the court sentences her to 6 years 2 months’ imprisonment.
|