HKSAR v. TIO TIN YEE

HCCC 154/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 154 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant, Tio Yin-yee, pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The offence took place on the 11th day of June 2016, at the carpark of Choi Shun Villa, Ground Floor, No 5 Rutland Quadrant, Kowloon. This case involved 4,441 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 4,255 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’.

Acting on information, at around 0022 hours on 11 June 2016, at Choi Shun Villa, Ground Floor, No 5 Rutland Quadrant, Kowloon Tong, the defendant and a male, Lam Wai-tak, were spotted walking out of the lobby after leaving Room A3. At that time, Lam was carrying a black bag and the defendant was carrying a blue bag and a brown LV bag. When Lam and the defendant were about to board a private car parked thereat, they were intercepted.

The black bag of Lam was searched and it contained, inter alia, one packet of ‘Ice’, subsequently certified to be 992 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 923 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Lam was arrested and under caution, he remained silent.

At the same time, the blue bag and brown bag of the defendant were searched. The blue bag was found to contain four packets of ‘Ice’, subsequently certified to contain a total of 3,449 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 3,332 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. In the brown LV bag of the defendant, one suspected ‘Ice’ bottle, one lighter and some aluminium foil were found.

The defendant was arrested for the items seized from her. Under caution, she said, “The ‘Ice’ is mine. I help the others to carry goods, there is nothing to do with the guy, all the ‘Ice’ belongs to me”.

Two video-recorded interviews were taken from the defendant. In the first VIR(VRI?), she stated inter alia that:

(i) ‘Ah Lun’ instructed her to go to the room of the hotel to collect a bag and bring it to him at Mong Kok later. She therefore invited her ex-boyfriend, Lam, to have sexual intercourse in the hotel room. After they had finished, Ah Lun told her on the phone where the bag was hidden in the room. She found the blue bag;

(ii) she asked Lam to drive her to Mong Kok to meet Ah Lun;

(iii) it is not possible for any dangerous drug to be found from Lam because Lam was not carrying any bag.

In the second VIR, the defendant stated, inter alia, the following under caution:

(i) She would receive $10,000 from Ah Lun as a reward for bringing the bag to him at Mong Kok;

(ii) she had used the two mobile phones found on her to call Ah Lun.

The street value in June 2016 of all dangerous drugs seized in this case was $1,509,940.

The defendant accepts and admits that at all material times, she had known the bags had contained ‘Ice’ and she had possessed the ‘Ice’ seized from both Lam and herself for the purpose of trafficking.

The antecedents statement of the defendant says that the defendant is now 31 years old. She was educated up to Form 3 level in Hong Kong. She worked as a saleslady and she had consumed methamphetamine for 10 years. Before her arrest, the defendant lived with her mother and son at a public housing unit in Kwai Chung.

The criminal record of the defendant shows that she has a total of three convictions recorded against her. In year 2004, she was twice convicted for the offence of possession of dangerous drug. In 2009, she was convicted of an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs in the High Court, HC 163/2009 and she was sentenced to 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

On 16 June 2017, when the defendant last appeared before me, at the request of Mr Ma, I adjourned this case to today so that the defendant can provide a non-prejudicial statement to the police. I am told this morning that the non-prejudicial statement turned out to be of no value to the prosecution.

Mr Ma, in mitigation, submits that the defendant pleaded guilty in the committal proceedings. Mr Ma submits that given the quantity of the dangerous drug and applying the tariffs as set down in HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas [2009] 2 HKC 197, a starting point of 26 years is appropriate. Mr Ma accepts that the fact that the defendant had once been convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug in 2009 is an aggravating factor. Mr Ma submits that in all the circumstances, taking into consideration the background of the defendant, an enhancement of 1 year is appropriate in the present case.

In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind the quantity and nature of the drugs involved, the facts of the case, the background of the defendant and all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Ma. I agree with Mr Ma that given the quantity of ‘Ice’ involved in this case, ie, 4,255 grammes, a starting point of 26 years is appropriate, applying the tariffs as set down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas.

The defendant was convicted of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug in 2009, for which she was sentenced to 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Obviously, the sentence of 6 years and 6 months failed to deter the defendant from committing further offence.

In my judgment, the criminal record of the defendant, in particular the previous record of trafficking in a dangerous drug, calls for a higher starting point in the present case. All matters taken into consideration, I agree with Mr Ma that an enhancement of 1 year is appropriate. The 1-year enhancement would bring the sentence up to 27 years.

The defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for her guilty plea tendered at the committal stage. That would bring the sentence down to 18 years’ imprisonment. Apart from the guilty plea of the defendant, there is no other effective mitigating factor which can further reduce the sentence.

For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 18 years’ imprisonment.