COURT: Lo Wai-ming, you pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134 on 15 November 2021 before the Eastern Magistrates’ Court.
Under Count 1, you pleaded guilty to trafficking in 719.5 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride or ‘Ice’ as it is known and under Count 2, you pleaded guilty to 1,281 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and you also pleaded guilty to 1.21 grammes of phenazepam which was contained within 1,569 tablets.
You have, today, confirmed that plea and you are formally found guilty on both Counts 1 and 2.
This offending, took place on 11 September 2020 over a year ago now, during an anti-narcotics operation which was carried out by the police. You were seen to come out of Unit B1 on the 4th Floor of Hong Fai Building in Kwong Shing Street and you were in possession of a plastic bag in which the ‘Ice’ in Count 1 was contained. So you were already carrying 719 grammes of ‘Ice’ with you when you left that unit.
At that time, you had $500 in cash on you, three mobile phones and a set of keys. Those were the keys that allowed the police to gain entry to the unit which was further subdivided into two rooms and in one of those rooms the drugs in Count 2 were recovered.
But as well as those drugs, a significant amount of drugs, as well as those drugs there were other items recovered which would have been used to distribute drugs such as the vacuum sealer, the digital scales and the heat sealing machine. That is just a few of the items that were recovered.
On arrest and caution you admitted, to your credit, that you were delivering drugs found upon you under Count 1 because you were in debt and the drugs found in the room were also to be for trafficking by you.
The estimated street value of the ‘Ice’ alone was $1,310,429.
In interview you said you owed a loan shark something like $20,000 and it was not completely clear from the interview whether you had instigated the trafficking activities, whether you had done it on your own account, whether the loan shark had instigated it or whether it was some other party. Mr Kuan in his written submissions had submitted that it came about as a result of your financial difficulties. In any event, you told the police that you were to receive $100 for every 100 grammes of dangerous drugs which you delivered and I assume that is the ‘Ice’, not the phenazepam.
In respect of what was found upon you in the room, you said that this was what was left from a delivery of 2,500 grammes of ‘Ice’ and you had used the equipment found within the flat to subdivide the drugs and deliver them. As a consequence you were clearly taking all the risks here because you were the one subdividing a large amount of drugs and moving them on.
You are a mature man of 46 years of age now. I note you were only educated up to Form 4 and sadly you are now divorced with two teenage children. You previously worked as a delivery driver earning, you said, approximately $20,000 per month. But you, like very many others, Mr Kuan has told me, were affected by the social unrest of 2019 and you had extra financial pressure which was placed upon you when your mother became ill and then later when your father also became ill and suffered kidney failure.
You resorted to resolving those problems; all of your financial difficulties by seeking to borrow money which you could not repay, especially in our difficult social circumstances in the past couple of years and inevitably you became bankrupt.
In order to cope with those financial difficulties, you decided that the way out of your difficulty was to traffic in dangerous drugs. No doubt because pressure was placed upon you.
You say you rented Room B1 just a few days before you were arrested and you were due to pay $5,500 per month for that room. I do not know who actually paid for it because according to the mitigation I have from Mr Kuan, you certainly could not afford to do so and if you were paying for it, you would have had to have trafficked in a lot of dangerous drugs.
But you do come before this court of previous good character and because you are 46 years of age, 45 at the time of the offending, that does suggest that this offending came about as a result of debt and as a result of you attempting to get yourself out of your financial difficulties. You were ideally placed as a delivery driver to be manipulated by others but you knew exactly what you were doing, even though you feel you may have had no choice. I note however that when you were arrested you were fully co-operative with the police.
You were a simple courier, although you received and repackaged dangerous drugs for others and therefore the relevant sentencing guidelines of those applicable for trafficking in large quantities of ‘Ice’ in HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 without the need for me to enhance it further for your role.
Under Count 1, you were trafficking in 719.5 grammes of ‘Ice’. For between 600 and 1,200 grammes of ‘Ice’, the sentencing band is 20 to 23 years. For 719.5 grammes of ‘Ice’, under Count 1, the starting point if you had had a trial would therefore be 20 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
Under Count 2, you were trafficking in far more. You were trafficking in 1,281 grammes of ‘Ice’ and also 1.21 grammes of phenazepam. The ‘Ice’ falls within the 1,200 to 4,000 grammes sentencing band which is 23 to 26 years. The ‘Ice’ under Count 2 would therefore attract a starting point after trial of approximately 23 years.
There are, as yet, no guidelines for the sentencing of phenazepam although I have been referred to a decision of Gall J in HCMA 225/1997 in respect of a comparison of methaqualone and diazepam, and also to R v Sin Shing Chong [1987] HKLR 1123 in which Barnes J compared opium to methaqualone.
Phenazepam is a powerful benzodiazepine. It acts primarily on the gamma-aminobutyric acid or GABA receptors in the brain, resulting in sedation and feelings of relaxation. Long term use will increase tolerance and will require increasing amounts to achieve the desired effect. Withdrawal symptoms include anxiety, depression and other effects. It has a potency of 10 times that of the recommended dose for diazepam.
In CACC 564/2002, Jackson J stated that sentencing practice was to equate diazepam with methaqualone. Benzodiazepines are often taken with other drugs. The 1,569 tablet of phenazepam with a narcotic content of 1.21 grammes attracts a starting point after trial of between 6 to 12 months. Because that is part and parcel of the drugs under Count 2, that would make a total under Count 2 of a starting point of 23 years and 6 months.
If I added those two counts together to reflect the fact that they are all part and parcel of the same exercise, those two would suggest a total sentence of something like 44 years which bears absolutely no relation to your culpability in this matter. But if I added together the quantity of ‘Ice’ you possessed at the time of your arrest, it would amount to just over 2,000 grammes and that would fall within the same 1,200 to 4,000 bracket for sentencing which I have already mentioned and it would attract as a total quantity a starting point after trial of 23 years and 9 months.
The sentence for the phenazepam of 6 months would then need to be added to that to allow for the latent risk of the sale of those drugs together, making what could be a lethal cocktail of drugs.
Unfortunately whilst the court can understand the explanation provided by Mr Kuan on your behalf, there is little else that can be advanced which can assist you in reducing the starting point. You will, of course, receive a full one-third discount for your plea at the earliest opportunity, for you remorse and for your co-operation.
Under Count 1, you will go to prison for 13 years and 8 months. Under Count 2, you will go to prison for 15 years and 8 months. 6 months of Count 1 will run consecutively to Count 2. That makes a total term of imprisonment of 16 years and 2 months.