|
HCCC 151/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 151 OF 2015
-----------------
------------------
| Before: |
Deputy High Court JudgeS D’Almada Remedios |
| Date: |
6 August 2015 at 10.41 am |
| Present: |
Mr Ken K M Ng, on fiat, for HKSAR |
|
Mr Andrew D Y Kan, instructed by Cheung & Liu, assigned by DLA for the accused |
| Offence: |
(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) & (6) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) |
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
COURT: Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to six charges of
trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section
(4)(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
These offences took place in August and September 2014. You had supplied drugs by selling them to an undercover woman police officer on six occasions. The drugs concerned were that of what is commonly referred to as “Ice”, or otherwise methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The offences all took place in the central area in Hong Kong and were in the vicinity of Lan Kwai Fong.
On 7 August 2014 at about 2 am, the woman police constable, who was the undercover officer, was at a bar in Lan Kwai Fong. She was approached by a man called “Billy” who told her he knew people who could provide her with “stuff”. The woman officer then gave him her mobile phone number and Billy said he would ask his friend to contact her.
Two days later you telephoned the officer and your phone number came up on the caller ID. You offered to sell her “Ice”. As a result, on 9 August she met you outside the Central MTR Statin and you took her to the junction of Wyndham Street and Wellington Street where you sold her “Ice” for $600.
The quantity was 0.27 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.26 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and these are the drugs concerned in the 1st charge.
You continued to call the woman police officer and, as a result, the next five transactions took place by you selling her drugs.
In respect of the 2nd charge, you sold drugs to her for the price of $600 on 13 August 2014, and those amount of drugs were 1.33 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.31 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
On that occasion, you had asked the woman police officer to deposit $600 into your bank account before you gave her the drugs and that she did then when you met you gave her the drugs.
On the third occasion, which concerns the 3rd charge, you sold her drugs on 18 August 2014. On that occasion you sold her 1.64 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.61 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Again, you asked her to deposit the money into your bank account first. She deposited $500, and then when she met you outside Tsui Wah Restaurant at Wellington Street in Central, she gave you the balance of $100 and you gave her the drugs.
In respect of the fourth occasion, which gives rise to the 4th charge, you sold her drugs on 24 August 2014. Those drugs were 3.65 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 3.62 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
On that occasion, you told her that the drugs would cost $1,000. However, you asked for $200 more for your taxi fare. You then met her outside 52 Wellington Street in Central at about 11.23 pm, and whist you were still in the taxi you gave her the drugs and then you took $1,200 cash.
On the 5th occasion, that occurred on 31 August to which you sold her 2.77 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2.72 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. You met up with the officer at about 12.45 am at the junction of Stanley Street and D’Aguilar Street in Central. Whilst still in the taxi, you gave her the drugs and she gave you $1,200.
On the sixth and last occasion you sold her drugs for $1,500. The amount of drugs was 5.97 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 5.96 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and that transaction took place at 12.50 am on 13 September 2014 outside 1 Lan Kwai Fong, Central. You gave her the drugs and she gave you cash of $1,500. However, at this time other officers were laying ambush in the vicinity and you were then intercepted by the officers.
The woman police officer then revealed her police identity to you. She pointed out that you were the one who had sold her the drugs “Ice” on the five previous occasions and on that day. You were arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs, and the marked money of $1,500 paid to you for drugs that day was retrieved from you. Two mobile phones were also seized from your person.
Upon arrest and under caution you stated that you worked in this trade only because you have no money.
Later, six separate video-recorded interviews were taken from you and you made full admissions to drug trafficking. You admitted that you were the person who had supplied the drugs to the officer. You then said in the interview that you would earn approximately $100 on each transaction. However, for the last transaction you could probably earn $400.
A record check was made on the telephone number that you used to callthe woman police officer, it was registered under your name. The other telephone number you called the woman police officer was an unregistered pre-paid SIM card number. The bank records showed that you were the account holder of the bank account to which the woman police officer deposited the money for the drugs.
On the six occasions, a total 15.63 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 15.48 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride were sold to the officer. Those drugs were seized. The street value of the drugs at the material time was $6,515.
Defendant, you were born in Hong Kong and are now 35 years of age. You have nine previous convictions on eight separate appearances: one of those convictions related to drugs possession of dangerous drugs to which you were sentence to 2 months’ imprisonment in 2002; you have one similar to which you were sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2004.
Mr Andrew Kan, your counsel, has confirmed your previous convictions, and in mitigation he states that your plea of guilty is your strongest mitigating factor.
As you stated upon your arrest, the main reason for committing this offence was because you were in debt. Further, you were greedy and influenced by other people.
At the time of this offence you were in very good employment. You were a sales agent, I understand, introducing people to loans and getting a commission of between 30 to 40 thousand dollars a month. It is a shame that with that amount of income that you got yourself into debt. However, you have frankly admitted your guilt to this very serious offence.
Mr Kan submits that for the quantity of drugs involved the sentence after trial falls within the bracket in Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 of between 7 to 10 years’ imprisonment.
The total amount of drugs that I shall sentence you for will be 15.48 grammes, which was the total amount in the six charges. Taking that as the amount, had you been convicted after trial, I would have taken a starting point of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
Defendant, your plea of guilty is your strongest mitigating factor. I do not consider there to be any aggravating factors in this case, despite you having a similar conviction. I shall not enhance that starting point as that conviction was now nearly over 10 years ago.
In the circumstances giving you the one third discount, that starting point should be reduced to one of 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, and that is the sentence you shall serve.
I must, however, sentence you on each charge separately, and these are the terms of imprisonment to which I shall impose on each charge.
For up to 10 grammes of “Ice”, as stated in the tariff case of Ching Kwok Hung, the sentence term is between 3 and 7 years’ imprisonment, and that is where the drugs fall in the six charges.
On Charge 1, I would have taken a starting point of 3 years after trial, giving you full credit for your plea. That sentence is reduced to one of 2 years’ imprisonment. That sentence applies to Charges 2 and 3 as well.
For Charge 4 and 5, I would have taken a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment and I reduce that to one of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment after your plea of guilty.
On Charge 6, I would have taken a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment had you been convicted after trial, giving you full credit for your plea of guilty that term is reduced to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
All charges are to run concurrent to each other, save that 2 years 2 months of Charge 6 is to run consecutive to Charge 4, making the total term of imprisonment 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
|