HKSAR v. LEUNG WUN YI

HCCC 255/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 255 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

Defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 12.5 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 12.1 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. She has also pleaded guilty to the 2nd charge of possession of a dangerous drug, namely 1.58 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.56 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The facts show that on 26 December 2015, the defendant was intercepted by police officers as she was wandering around outside Ground Floor, Tai Yan House in Tai Po, New Territories. Upon a search, police officers found from the defendant’s sleeve a piece of tissue paper containing a transparent resealable plastic bag containing the drugs which is the subject matter of the 1st count.

Upon arrest and caution, she remained silent. She was escorted back to her home in Room 2005 on the 20th Floor of Tai Yan House. And upon a search of the room, the “Ice” which is the subject matter of count 2 was found. And inside a coin box was also found a large number, some 209 in total, of resealable plastic bags. She was arrested and cautioned for this, and the defendant claimed this was for self-consumption.

Subsequently, on the following day, in a video-recorded interview, the defendant asserted that the “Ice” found in her sleeve was purchased from a male for $1,600.

She claimed that half the “Ice” belonged to her, whilst the other half she had bought for male “Ah Kit”. She said that this half of this “Ice” was for her own self consumption, and she would sometimes share it with friends without charge. She claim that had she not been arrested, she would have gone up to her room and packed her friend’s half in plastic bags to give to him later. The “Ice” that was found in her home, she said, were leftovers from what she had consumed previously. She explained that the plastic bags found were for containing “Ice” for her own consumption.

She said she was a CSSA recipient for about four years, and receiving about $4,000 a month for her and her family, and she would spend $2,000 a month on dangerous drugs.

According to the police, the retail street value of the “Ice” that were found was in the region, both combined, about HK$4,000.

The defendant is aged 37 and has seven previous convictions, two of which were drug-related. Her last conviction for drugs was in 2013, which was for possession of dangerous drugs, for which she was sent to Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

Her last discharge from prison was on 19 May 2015, and this offence was committed in December 2015.

In mitigation, Mr Woon submitted that the defendant is a drug abuser, as it is a fact which is supported by the medical report which was obtained by the defence about a urine test conducted shortly after the defendant’s arrest, which showed positive for the presence of amphetamine. Mr Woon asserted that the defendant was buying the drugs for herself and friends, and was not selling the drugs to the public at large.

I informed Mr Woon that I was not prepared to accept that half of the drugs in count 1 were for the defendant’s own consumption, although I would accept that she is a drug abuser, and that certainly, some of it may have been for her own consumption, but not a significant portion.

I also indicated to Mr Woon that he is at liberty to call evidence on that. After taking instructions, I am informed that the defence do not wish to call any evidence on that point. Mr Woon, however, said that apart from the $4,000 that the defendant received from the government, she also would receive some financial support from her parents, her father being a construction site worker, and her mother being a security guard.

I do take into account that the defendant has three children aged between 9 to 19 years old. Mr Woon says that the defendant is divorced from her husband and receives $5,000 a month from him in maintenance, I suppose. I can only gauge from that the defendant is not a well-to-do person. She not only has to feed herself and her children, she not only has to pay for their education and their living expenses, she also has to support her own drug habit. She is unemployed and she spends, according to Mr Woon, the hard-earned money of her mother and father, part of it was for her drug consumption. It is a very selfish act on her part, and she is very lucky to have a supportive family.

I have also asked Mr Woon if the children of the defendant requires any social welfare assistance, and Mr Woon, having taken instructions, say that the children are properly looked after by the grandparents.

For trafficking in methamphetamine hydrochloride, the Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines in the case of Tam Yi Chun in 2014, that trafficking between 10 to 70 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride would merit a starting point sentence of 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment.

The strongest mitigation on behalf of the defendant is the fact that she has pleaded guilty, and I also take into account the fact that she was a drug abuser, and that some of the drugs were for her own consumption, though not a significant portion.

Now, the amount in the first count of 12.1 grammes would merit a starting point sentence after trial of 7 years to 7 and a half years’ imprisonment. I would take a starting point sentence of 7 years, and reduce it, because of her plea and because some part, a small part of the amount in the 1st count was for her own consumption, and reduce the sentence to 4 years and 4 months.

For the 2nd count, which was for possession of 1.56 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, I would adopt a starting point of 12 months and reduce to 8 months.

The fact is that both offences were discovered on the same day, and I think, in those circumstances, that I would make both sentences concurrent.

The defendant goes to prison for 4 years and 4 months.