HKSAR v. LAW YUN TING

HCCC 135/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2063

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 135 OF 2018

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate for a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The defendant was intercepted by Customs officers at a car park. Inside the rucksack carried by him was found a plastic bag containing 991 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 919 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Under caution, he admitted the drug belonged to him despite not knowing exactly what the drug was and he was going to take the drug to someone upstairs for a reward of $3,000. I was told that the defendant is 24 years of age. He received education up to Form 3. He is single. He had worked in a transportation company in 2017 earning about $10,000 per month. He did not have any criminal conviction record before.

Learned counsel for the defence, Mr Cheung, urged the court to take into account that the defendant is remorseful and he had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He also informed the court that the defendant agreed to be a courier as he was heavily in debt and was under a circumstance which he felt concerned about the safety of his grandparents because of something said by the person who engaged him. The defendant wrote a letter in which he expressed remorse.

The dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was ‘Ice’. The total narcotic content was 919 grammes. In HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, it was held that the tariff in HKSAR v Abdallah is applicable if the narcotic content exceeded 600 grammes. In Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437, the Court of Appeal held that in a case of trafficking in heroin, if the narcotic content was 600 grammes to 1,200 grammes, the sentence should be 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment. I see nothing to justify departure from the tariff.

I was told that the defendant committed the present offence while he was on bail for another case in which he was charged with conspiracy to defraud. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Wong Yun Fat [2017] 4 HKLRD 59 confirmed that this situation amounted to an aggravating feature and accordingly the sentence should be enhanced. Mr Cheung urged the court to note that the offence in the present case is completely different in nature with that of the other case and that there has yet been a decision whether the other case will be proceeded with. In the circumstances, it is submitted that no enhancement of sentence is warranted.

In my judgment, committing an offence whilst on bail for a case different in nature does not lessen the aggravating effect, in particular as the offence committed later was of a very serious nature as in the present case. The court has to view the matter seriously. The defendant demonstrated a flagrant disregard of the law. In my judgment, an enhancement of 3 months is called for.

Having considered the whole circumstances, I will adopt an ultimate starting point of 21 years and 9 months in this case. The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for his guilty plea. In all the circumstances, bearing in mind what learned counsel told me, I am of the view that one-third is the extent of the discount that the defendant is entitled to in this case.

Defendant, please stand up. For the reasons I have said, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 14½ years for the offence.