HKSAR v. CHUNG CHUNG PIK KEI

HCCC 24/2018

[2020] HKCFI 2428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 24 OF 2018

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 258 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 255 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. She was committed to this court for sentence. However, prior to sentence she had offered her assistance to police officers investigating this case, leading to the arrest of a co‑defendant in this case, Ip Tung-tai, and whose trial was before me and in which the defendant had given evidence against him. It was largely due to her assistance that the defendant was arrested, was identified by her, was prosecuted successfully, and so the defendant in this case is therefore entitled to have her assistance fully recognized in mitigation.

The defendant had admitted the facts which is that around 24 May 2017 at around 10.13 pm, she was observed by police officers acting nervously. She was intercepted and in her handbag was found the drugs which is the subject matter of this charge.

The defendant subsequently admitted in a video-recorded interview that she had been asked by a man in a video arcade to take the bag of drugs to someone in Tung Choi Street and she was promised a reward of $500.

She admitted to the fact that the estimated street value of the drugs is in the region of HK$80,496.

The defendant was aged 35 at her arrest and she does have a criminal record. However, they were for relatively minor offences and none relevant apart from three charges of possession of dangerous drugs and one for possession of equipment fit for smoking and injecting, all in 2002 and 2011 and 2014. I am told in mitigation that the defendant has two children: one, two years old and one 12 years old, both of them being looked after by her mother.

Mr Ma submitted that the reason for her to commit this present offence is really out of wanting to earn money to support her children.

The law is pretty clear as to the range of sentences for possession or trafficking in methamphetamine hydrochloride and this was laid down in the case of Tam Yi Chun in 2014. The Court of Appeal recommended that for trafficking in between 70 to 300 grammes, the sentence should be in the region of 11 to 15 years after trial. So the starting-point sentence would be mathematically in the region of about 14 years.

As I have noted, the defendant did give evidence in the trial of Ip and she was believed by the jury and her evidence was good. She did not seek to embellish her evidence and she answered the questions as best as she could and thus the jury accepted, or most of them by a majority, accepted her evidence as the truth and convicted Ip.

So having considered the starting-point sentence, I am prepared to give the defendant the full 50 per cent off. So I would consider therefore in taking, adopting the lower starting point in the recommended sentencing guideline and I would adopt a starting point of 13 years, and giving her the 50 per cent discount, she is therefore sentenced to 6½ years’ imprisonment.

So I would tell the defendant if she is in prison and with good conduct, etc, she would also get a further discount in sentence given by the Commissioner for her good conduct. So I would suggest that the defendant for the sake of the children actually learn a skill, a trade whilst in prison so that when she comes out, she can start earning money legally and properly in order not to waste any more time. It is time to grow up and you have to really thank your mother for standing by you as well and do not disappoint her again.