COURT: I have to sentence you for trafficking in a dangerous drug. The drug in question was “Ice” and you were found to be in possession of 1,900 grammes of it. You were caught coming through Lowu with the drug taped to your body. There is every indication on the facts as they have been presented to me, submitted in mitigation by your counsel, that you were a mere courier and that another man who was there present at the time was really running the show. You were 19 years old at the time.
You will have been told that sentencing for trafficking in dangerous drugs in Hong Kong is the subject of guidelines which are based upon the nature of the drug and the quantity of it. The “Ice” guidelines run out from an amount of 600 grammes, which attract sentences of 18 years and up. In relation to heroin there are guidelines that carry on from 600 grammes up to amounts over 15 kilogrammes. There is thus a degree of certainty when it comes to sentencing for large quantities of heroin.
It had been my practice in sentencing from large quantities of “Ice” like yours to follow the heroin guideline. I did that for what I believe to be a very simple and logical reason that “Ice” was no less a grave drug than heroin. I based that on some 22 years of experience since 1991 when the “Ice” guideline was promulgated, because in that case it was said:
“We are persuaded that ‘Ice’ is a drug to be taken very seriously indeed. In ways it is more deleterious to its abusers and to society in general than is heroin.”
I have not heard anyone in any court advance any argument to the contrary. It is therefore a matter of some surprise for me to tell you that the law as it now stands is that if a man were, say, to carry 2 kilogrammes of heroin through Lowu he will get a greater sentence than if he carried 2 kilogrammes of “Ice”.
You in fact will be the recipient of an approach that acknowledges that because that is what the Court of Appeal says should happen and who am I to disagree. Accordingly, I will not look at what would happen if this had been heroin. I shall go to some cases that your counsel refers me to. From those cases you can pick starting points between 21 or 22 years up to 24 years. It just demonstrates the vice of looking into other cases and feeling oneself to be bound by them.
In view of the fact that you pleaded guilty at an early stage, you are a young man and the like, I shall stay at the bottom of that bracket of sentences based on those cases. Accordingly, I shall start with a sentence supposedly after trial of 22 years.
I know that you have made two non-prejudicial witness statements and I know what happened when you were arrested, the presence of a third party, the fact that you had just a dollar on you and what you immediately said when approached by the Customs officers.
The Department of Justice decided not to use you to prosecute anybody else but I accept you did everything in your power to help the authorities. Based upon what I know from the facts of the case, I will proceed on the basis that that was a truthful account that you gave to the prosecution.
It would be a difficult decision for them to decide whether or not to prosecute based only on your evidence and I can understand why they did not do so. However, I think you can earn some credit though it has to be limited in view of the fact that nothing actually came of it.
You earn a one-third discount for your plea of guilty. From the 22-year starting point that will be 14 years and 8 months. In view of all I know about the case, I think it just if I round that down to 14 years, reflecting the help you in fact gave to the authorities.
Accordingly, the sentence I pass upon you is one of 14 years imprisonment. That is a lot less than it might otherwise have been if circumstances had been different.
One thing I will say is this: I was happy to go to the bottom end of the range of sentences that were available to me. I emphasise that. It is not because I regard “Ice” as a less grave drug than heroin. I was happy to do it because of the role you played in the crime because, in my view, the difference between the way we sentence those responsible for drug trafficking rings, and organising it, and playing executive roles in it and the mere courier is too slim. So it may be you got the right sentence for what I regard as the wrong reason.
But for your purposes, all I need tell you and assure you of is that you do have the least sentence you could have hoped for. I know that your mother is in court, and I will mention now, I have read the letter you sent to me, Madam. Thank you for it.