HKSAR v. LEE HIN HO, SARKE

HCCC 269/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 269 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in d dangerous drug, contrary to sections 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134.

He was seen by the police officers to have picked up a plastic bag from a flower bed. A light good vehicle arrived and the defendant opened the back compartment to place the plastic bag there and then boarded with another person.

That vehicle was stopped at the Kwai Ching interchange. The plastic bag placed in the back compartment was found to contain eight bags of drugs which upon analysis were found to be 8.03 kilogrammes of crystalline solid containing 7.9 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Upon caution, the defendant admitted that he was helping others to deliver the drugs to Tsuen Was for a reward of HK$8,000 but he had not yet received the money.

The market value of the drugs was about HK$2.6 million.

The defendant has one previous conviction of possession of dangerous drugs back in 2011 for which he was placed on probation for 15 months.

By way of mitigation, I was told that the defendant is now aged 24, and after his last offence, he managed to sever his ties from all the undesirable peers and not relapse back into drugs. The present was committed at a time when he had to live on his savings and casual jobs and he foolishly, out of momentary lack of judgment, agreed to deliver these drugs for quick money of $8,000. He had no idea of the quantity involved and thus not aware of the seriousness of the consequence. Counsel asked me to take into account his full confession and guilty plea at the earliest possible instance and that this defendant has to pay the better part of his youth as a price of his stupidity. Counsel says that the defendant has promised to make good use of the time whilst incarcerated to better prepare himself for his discharge and counsel asked me to be as lenient as possible in sentencing.

In sentencing the defendant, I have taken into account his guilty plea, mitigation forwarded by counsel on his behalf and the existing tariff. The sentencing tariff for trafficking in ‘Ice’ for over 600 grammes, the Abdallah tariff applies which means that for trafficking between 4,000 to 1,500 grammes, the starting point is between 26 to 30 years’ imprisonment. The present case involves 7.9 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’, I adopt a starting point 27 years’ imprisonment. I shall give him the full one-third discount for his guilty plea.

He is sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment.