HKSAR v. LAW KA SHUN

HCCC 45/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 45 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant, Law Ka-shun, was charged with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. He pleaded guilty before me and was duly convicted after he admitted to the Summary of Facts.

The facts disclosed that on 29 May 2015, at the Arrival Hall of Lok Ma Chau Control Point, the defendant was intercepted by customs officers.

A search of his shoulder bag yielded what was later confirmed to be 985 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 983 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride with an estimated street value of $388,090.

The defendant, under caution, claimed that he was entrusted by a friend to bring the shoulder bag from Shenzhen to Hong Kong for a reward of $3,000. He was told the bag contained tea leaves. The defendant also told the officers that his girlfriend, that is Chan Ho-ki, was waiting for him outside the coach pickup area. Ms Chan was intercepted and a total of 981 grammes of ‘Ice’ were found on her.

Both the defendant and Chan took part in a controlled delivery. They went to Festival Walk at Kowloon Tong in the company of custom officers. Chan took a photo of the defendant and sent it over to a person with whom she exchanged text messages. Finally, she was told that no one would turn up to collect the drugs. So the controlled delivery was not fruitful.

The defendant was 24 years old at the time of the offence. He was a warehouse worker, earning around $15,000 a month. He was educated up to Secondary 3 level, single, and claimed to be an abuser of ‘Ice’ since he was 15. He has two previous convictions, one for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the other one for theft.

Mr Cheng, mitigating on behalf of the defendant, informed me more of the defendant’s background. While the defendant was still in primary school, it was discovered that he is dyslexic and he has learning difficulties. After reaching Form 3 level, he started working, had done various jobs until finally became a warehouse worker. He committed the present offence as he was greedy and wanted to earn quick money. Mr Cheng asked me to take into account the defendant’s plea and his co-operation with the authorities in taking part in the controlled delivery.

Offences involving dangerous drugs are serious, particularly when trafficking of dangerous drugs is involved. A person convicted on indictment of trafficking in a dangerous drug is liable to a fine of $5 million and to life imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal has set down guidelines for the trafficking of ‘Ice’ in the case of HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691. The quantity of ‘Ice’ involved in this case is 983 grammes. Trafficking between 600 to 1,200 grammes of ‘Ice’, the starting point is between 20 to 23 years.

After taking into account the circumstances of this case, the quantity of ‘Ice’ involved and the defendant’s background, I am of the view that a starting point of 21 years is appropriate.

This case involved cross-border trafficking so an enhancement is called for. The quantity of ‘Ice’ involved is almost 1,000 grammes. After considering the case of HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun, CACC 85/2014, I am of the view that an enhancement of 2 years is appropriate.

The defendant did not plead guilty at the earliest available opportunity and not even at the PTR. Nevertheless, I accept that he has tendered a timely plea and I will give him the full one-third discount.

The defendant took part in a controlled delivery which turned out to be fruitless. Having considered the circumstances of the controlled delivery and the fact that his girlfriend Chan was known to the man Ah Keung more than he, that is the friend he agreed to carry the drugs for, I am satisfied that the defendant had done all that he could to assist in the circumstances.

Bearing in mind that it is important to encourage arrested persons to render such assistance, a further discount is warranted. See the two cases HKSAR v Gopal Muthusamy, CACC 238/2010 (unreported) and HKSAR v Jardin Rodela Maningas, CACC 278/2011 (unreported). With an enhanced starting point of 23 years, a usual one-third discount would bring the sentence down to 15 years 4 months. I will give the defendant a further discount of 19 months for the assistance he had given, making a total discount of just over 40 per cent.

So for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the defendant is sentenced to 13 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.