HKSAR v. LIU CHIN YICK

HCCC 179/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 179 OF 2011

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

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

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

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

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

 

COURT: Having pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to the four charges of unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134,laid against him, Mr Liu Chin‑yick has been committed to this court for sentence.

These four instances of drug trafficking occurred in different locations but on the same day, namely, 14 July 2010. I will refer to methamphetamine hydrochloride as “MH” and to methamphetamine as “M”.

The Charge 1 drugs consist of 11.92 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 11.78 grammes of MH. The Charge 2 drugs consist of 22 litres of a liquid containing approximately 3.14 kilogrammes of M. The Charge 3 drugs consist of 65.90 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 65.269 kilogrammes of MH and 5.01 grammes of a powder containing 4.85 grammes of diazepam. The Charge 4 drugs consist of 2.375 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 2.325 kilogrammes of MH.

By far the most serious charge is Charge 3. The amount of MH involved in this charge is 65.269 kilogrammes. Of this amount, 62.30 kilogrammes is of the ‘l’ type while 2.96887 kilogrammes is of the ‘d’ type. As far as Charge 4 is concerned, the amount of MH involved in this charge is 2.325 kilogrammes. Of this amount, 55.40 grammes is of the ‘l’ type while 2.26931 kilogrammes is for the ‘d’ type. As far as Charge 2 is concerned, all of the amount of 3.14 kilogrammes of M involved is of the ‘l’ type. As far as Charge 1 is concerned, the amount of MH involved in this charge is 11.78 grammes. Of this amount, 0.73 grammes is of the ‘l’ type while 11.05 grammes is of the ‘d’ type.

At one stage, the defence attached importance to its contention that MH of the ‘l’ type is less harmful in terms of toxicity, potency and addictiveness than MH of the ‘d’ type. Now, however, having regard to the amount of MH of the ‘d’ type in all these charges, that difference is not something upon which the defence relies. The total amount of MH of the ‘d’ type involved in these charges is 5.24923 kilogrammes which the defence does not dispute is a huge amount. Moreover the defence accepts that the MH of the ‘l’ type cannot be ignored when it comes to sentence although, the defence says, its less harmful nature should be borne in mind. It is not really satisfactory that the relative harmfulness of these two types of MH should be resolved on certain evidence at first instance leaving open the possibility of a different conclusion reached on different evidence in another first instance case. This is the sort of issue which should be resolved at a level binding on all first instance courts. Moreover the prosecution has treated the difference as irrelevant for present purposes. Subject to all of that, I will proceed in such a way as to give the defence the benefit of the difference which it asserts to be the limited extent to which it relies on that difference.

In passing sentence, I take into account everything said on behalf of the accused.

I have of course been guided by the sentencing guidelines by the Court of Appeal. These indicate a starting point of 18 years upwards for anything more than 600 grammes of MH. I have been shown a number of past cases involving more than 600 grammes of MH.

All things including totality are considered. I have decided to pass wholly concurrent sentences on these charges and to adopt the following starting points: 7 years on Charge 1; 22 years on Charge 2; 26 years on Charge 3; and 23 years on Charge 4.

I take into account the accused’s early guilty pleas, the evidence which he has given for the prosecution, his apparent remorse, his co-operation with authorities, and everything else urged on his behalf. For all of this, I give him a discount of 45 per cent. The total sentence, rounding the numbers down in the accused’s favour, as appropriate, is therefore 14 years and 3 months’ imprisonment made up of wholly concurrent terms of3 years and 10 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1;12 years and 1 month’s imprisonment for Charge 2;14 years and 3 months’ imprisonment for Charge 3; and12 years and 7 months’ imprisonment for Charge 4.

I therefore sentence the accused to 3 years and 10 months’ imprisonment under Charge 1, 12 years and 1 month’s imprisonment for Charge 2; 14 years and 3 months’ imprisonment for Charge 3; and 12 years and 7 months’ imprisonment for Charge 4 - and I order that all the sentences are to run concurrently with each other.