HKSAR v. NG LOK LAM

HCCC 194/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 194 OF 2014

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section (4)(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

She was observed by police to emerge from a room in a housing estate and walked through the lobby. She was intercepted, and in her hand was a transparent resealable plastic bag containing four packets of drugs.

A further search in her handbag revealed a pile of transparent re-sealable bags, an electronic scale, some plastic straw containing traces of "Ice", $1,500 cash and two mobile phones.

Under caution she admitted that those were dangerous drugs and someone placed the drugs in her bedroom for safekeeping. A search there revealed a further 40 plastic bags of drugs and a number of transparent resealable plastic bags.

Upon analysis it was found that the total quantity of drugs seized amounted to 67.96 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 66.34 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The retail value of the drugs was slightly less than $30,000. She is now aged 17. In August 2013 she was charged for an offence of criminal damage, for damaging the furniture at home when her mother refused to give her a cheque in the sum of $6,000. She was bound over against any criminal damage conduct for a period of 12 months. She committed the present offence during the operation period of that binding over order.

By way of mitigation, I was urged to take into account her guilty plea, her extreme youth, her contrition of offering to assist the police, although that was not fruitful, and that she herself was an addict at the time of the present offence.

Counsel stressed that she had been exploited by a man of a much older age to become an addict herself and to use her from time to time as a store for his trafficking activities. Counsel also submitted that in view of her young age, her background, that the existing tariff as laid down by the Court of Appeal is simply too harsh and should not be a straightjacket.

In sentencing the defendant, I have taken into account her plea, the nature of the drugs, the relevant sentencing tariff and mitigation forwarded, as well as her clear record, albeit that she was bound over.

I do not agree that 16 years and 11 months at the time of the incident can plead extreme youth, especially in drug trafficking cases. According to the background report, the defendant cannot be said to be extremely naïve or immature, rather, she has been a strong-headed and rebellious youngster who acted in flagrant disregard of the law, including the CP order on her back in 2011 after that she still went repeatedly missing.

One aspect of the law is its certainty that is why we have a guideline on tariffs in sentencing. Whilst young people have been warned repeatedly either by government propaganda or others to stay away from drugs, many of them still pay no heed and plunge their heads into it knowing fully its consequence.

It could not be said that young people these days have not been made aware of the serious consequences of trafficking in dangerous drugs. If the law is too lenient to young people, then adults can see that as an opportunity to make use of young people to become drug couriers.

According to Ching Kwok Hung, trafficking in 10 to 70 grammes of "Ice" attracts a starting point ranging from 7 to 10 years.

The narcotics in the present case is 66.34 grammes. I adopt a starting point of 9 1/2 years' imprisonment.

It is clear from the authorities that cooperation with the police alone, short of any arrest, would not trigger any special procedure which could justify a lenient view to be taken to warrant further discounts.

I see nothing in this case which would warrant any further discount from one-third for her guilty plea, and her remorse is subsumed into this one-third discount.

She goes to prison for 6 years and 4 months.