HKSAR v. LAM CHI TAK

HCCC 76/2018

[2019] HKCFI 919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 76 OF 2018

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

A. CHARGES

1.  The defendant LAM CHI TAK was charged with two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to Section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  He pleaded guilty before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.

B. FACTS

2.  The facts disclosed on 10 May 2017, the police mounted an operation at a mini-storage premises in Canton Road.  The defendant was seen gaining entry to the premises with an access card.  The police entered the premises and found the defendant sitting inside and using the light from his mobile phone for illumination.  Upon search, the police found the following:

(1) a total of 60.05 grammes of a solid containing 48.54 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“ICE”);

(2) a total of 1.19 grammes of a solid containing 0.14 grammes of methamphetamine;

(3) a total of 1.843 litres of a liquid containing 1.9063 kilogramme of gamma-butyrolactone (“GBL”); and

(4) devices and paraphernalia for consuming ICE and dangerous drug were found inside the premises.

3.  The defendant was arrested and under caution, the defendant said he had been caught red-handed, the seized dangerous drug was “pork”, meaning ICE.  As to the liquid, the defendant said those in the larger size were “G Water” and the rest were “aphrodisiacs liquid”.  The defendant also admitted that the “ICE-bottles” were purchased by him for self‑consumption.

4.  Police enquiry revealed that the defendant rented a room at “Travelodge Kowloon” in Yau Ma Tei.  The police went to the room to search.  Another male was found sleeping inside.

5.  After the defendant provided the password, the police searched the safe inside the room.  The police also searched the bedside cabinet.  The police found:

(1) a total of 16.87 grammes of a solid containing 15.25 grammes of ICE;

(2) a total of 98 millilitres of a liquid containing 109 grammes of GBL; and

(3) some dangerous drug packaging paraphernalia were found inside the safe.

6.  The defendant was further arrested inside the hotel room and under caution, the defendant admitted that all the ICE and the “V Chai” seized belonged to him, which his friend (the man found sleeping inside the room) knew nothing about.

7.  The defendant attended three video-recorded interviews. Among other things, the defendant claimed that he used the mini-storage to pack and store the dangerous drugs and the Part I poison.  He obtained the G Water from someone in the Mainland in an average price of HK$320 for 2000 ml.  He would trade the G Water for ICE from his friends.  The defendant obtained the ICE from someone called Ah Chak and he would sell the ICE to others at a price of $400-500 per gramme to make a profit.  The defendant purchased the smoking apparatus also in the Mainland.  The man found inside the hotel room knew nothing about the dangerous drugs inside the safe.  The drugs seized from the bedside cabinet were less valuable than those kept in the safe.

8.  The estimated value of the seized ICE was $24,370.

C. BACKGROUND

9.  The defendant is a single man, 33 years of age.  He studied up to Form 5.  He is not a man with clear record, having appeared in court on two occasions (in 2004 and 2006 respectively) and had 4 criminal convictions.  In 2004, he was convicted of Theft, an Attempt to Obtain Property by Deception and Obtaining Property by Deception. For these three offences he was sentenced to a Rehabilitation Centre.  In 2006, he was convicted or Possession of Dangerous drug and he was fined $1,000 (I was given to understand the dangerous drug involved was ketamine).  The defendant worked as a mobile phone salesman from 2003 to 2016, earning $19,000 per month.

D. EXPERT REPORT ON GBL

10.  As there are no sentencing guidelines for the trafficking of GBL, I was provided with two reports from Dr Chan Chi-keung, who was also called to give evidence by the prosecution.

11.  Having looked at Dr Chan’s qualifications, and in the absence of any objection from the defence, I accepted Dr Chan as an expert in this area to give his expert opinion.

12.  His expert opinion was sought to comment on the drug GBL, with emphasis on its effect on humans, its addictiveness, its withdrawal symptoms and the comparison of it with other dangerous drugs such as ICE, cocaine, heroin, ketamine, ecstasy and cannabis.

13.  According to Dr Chan, GBL is colourless soluble liquid in room temperature.  It has a distinctive taste and odour, which could easily be masked by drinks like fruit juice or cola.

14.  It is used as a solvent and reagent in industrial chemistry and in cleaning products.

15.  GBL is a prodrug of gamma hydroxybutyric acid (“GHB”), an abusive drug commonly known as “date-rape drug”.  After oral ingestion, GBL is rapidly absorbed and completely converted to GHB.  Drug effect occurs within 15 minutes after ingestion and usually lasts for several hours.

16.  There being no published human GBL dose-effect data, Dr Chan used the available human GHB dose-effect data, which were from volunteer studies and case reports outside Hong Kong with the ethnicity of the studied subjects being either non-Chinese or unknown, to predict the dose‑effect of GBL.

17.  The effects, following the use of GBL dose from 0.7 gramme to over 2.4 grammes, go from confusion, euphoria, memory loss and drowsiness to coma.  Life threatening harmful effects including deep coma, respiratory depression, apnoea and cerebral hypoxia may occur.  Other reported clinical effects after GBL use include bradycardia, hypotension, hypothermia, small pupils size, salivation, vomiting and sometimes myoclonus.  Salivation and vomiting can complicate the respiratory depression leading to aspiration pneumonia in comatose patients.

18.  The confusion and euphoria associated with GBL use increased the chance of risky behaviour and accidental injuries.  Victims of GBL intoxication tend to suffer from anterograde amnesia, making it difficult to recall events that precipitated the recreational use or the alleged drug-facilitated sexual assault.

19.  Used as an abusive substance, GBL is a central nervous system depressant with clinical effects similar to that of acute alcohol intoxication and acute benzodiazepines intoxication.  Their degrees of addictiveness are considered to be similar.

20.  The dose used for recreational purpose is around 1 ml pure liquid containing 1.13 g GBL.  The dose can be added to beverages for consumption.  Recreational dose will create euphoria.  However, 2 ml of GBL can cause comatose, 3 ml would be fatal.  Whilst the effect and addictiveness of benzodiazepines (which is basically sleeping pills, with a therapeutic dosage of between 5-10 mg) are similar to GBL, the safety margin of benzodiazepines is much higher.  For benzodiazepines to cause death, one has to take 50-100 mg, meaning that accidental overdose is not likely.

21.  GBL is a dangerous drug in Hong Kong and its effects are identical to those of GHB.  Its addictiveness and abuse potential are also considered to be identical to that of GHB.  Chronic users of GBL develop physical dependence and tolerance.  Abrupt cessation produces a withdrawal syndrome often indistinguishable from alcohol withdrawal.

22.  Dr Chan is of the view that when compared with ketamine, heroin, ICE, cocaine and cannabis, GBL causes relatively less body harm in both acute and long-term use.  Dr Chan referred to a table (“Table 1”)[1] which made a comparison between GHB / GBL with other commonly known dangerous drugs in the United Kingdom (“UK”) as to their physical harmful effect.

23.  Relying on another table (“Table 2”)[2] prepared by experts in the UK Dr Chan made a comparison between GHB / GBL with other commonly known dangerous drugs as to physical harm, dependence and social harm.  Dr Chan is of the view that GHB / GBL are less harmful than all the dangerous drugs listed in Table 2.

24.  I would add here that during his oral testimony, Dr Chan also gave the figures for benzodiazepines (which were not in Table 2).  The scores he gave were 1.63 for physical harm, 1.83 for dependency and 1.65 for social harm.

25.  Dr Chan said it is difficult to assess the prevalence of GBL use as most data are confounded by the inclusion of both GHB and GBL usage.  According to the World Health Organization 2014, the prevalence of GHB / GBL use is generally low in EU countries and in the US.

26.  There was no published data related to the prevalence of GBL use in Hong Kong, Dr Chan recommended the dose of 1.13 grammes of GBL as the average daily dose in a normal GBL user.  For chronic GBL users, tolerance will be developed and a much higher daily dose has been reported, citing a reported daily “round the clock” use of 13.6 g to 45.2 g in 19 patients.

27.  According to Dr Chan’s research, there is a higher usage of GHB / GBL as recreational drugs among homosexual men and among samples taken in “gay” bars in Amsterdam.

28.  The quantity involved in this case (2,015.3 grammes) would represent a daily dose for 1,783 days.

E. INFORMATION RE ARRESTS

29.  I was provided with a statement from WDSIP Chung Man‑ling, dated 12 December 2018.  She was asked to provide statistics in relation to GBL and GHB from January 2014 to November 2018, which she provided in the form of a table[3].

30.  I have also been provided with information from Yeung Ming‑ko, a Customs Inspector.  He has been asked to provide statistics in relation to both GBL and GHB seized by Customs and Excise Department (“C&E”) from 2002 to 2018.  Again, Mr Yeung has provided me with a table[4], setting out the relevant information.

31.  It can be seen from the table provided by Mr Yeung that there were many cases involving a large quantity of GBL / GHB since 2015 with relatively few persons being arrested in connection with those cases.  I sought more information from the officer, who provided me with an updated table[5].

32.  I was informed that all the cases with person arrested were import cases.

F. SUBMISSION BY THE PROSECUTION

33.  Mr Bobby Cheung (“B Cheung”), Senior Public Prosecutor, referred to the expert evidence of Dr Chan and submitted that while (1) the addictiveness and abuse potential of GBL and GHB are identical to each other and considered to be comparable to that of ethanol and benzodiazephines, and (2) that GBL and GHB causes relatively less physical harm, dependence and social harm when compared with ketamine, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and cannabis, he placed emphasis on Dr Chan’s opinion that victims of GBL intoxication tend to suffer from anterograde amnesia, making it difficult to recall events that precipitated the recreational use or the alleged drug-facilitated sexual assault.  Both GBL and GHB have been used in criminal setting of drug‑facilitated sexual assault.  Mr B Cheung also emphasised that GBL has a very narrow safety margin between recreational dose and poisoning does.

34.  Mr B Cheung submitted that this Court should take into account not only the potency but also the associated use (being a date-rape drug) and its very narrow safety margin before determining the appropriate sentence for GBL.

35.  As for the figures provided by the two inspectors, Mr B Cheung referred to the figures provided by C& E and submitted that in all the export and transhipment cases, C&E has not been able to arrest any person.  All those arrested and prosecuted were import cases in which the intended recipients were in Hong Kong.  

36.  Referring to Dr Chan’s evidence, Mr B Cheung submitted that GBL and GHB have the same effects so the figures in the tables covering both drugs are relevant to this case, when the defendant is convicted of trafficking GBL.

37.  Mr B Cheung also pointed out that GBL / GHB cases rose since 2012, and since 2015, significant quantities of GBL / GHB were seized by the Customs, the majority of which were export cases.

G. SUBMISSION BY THE DEFENCE

38.  Mr Patrick Cheung (“P Cheung”), counsel for the defendant, also referred to Dr Chan’s report in which it was concluded that the pharmacological and harmful effects of GBL are similar to those of acute intoxication and acute benzodiazepines intoxication.  Their degrees of addictiveness are considered to be similar. Dr Chan also said in evidence that diazepam is a member of the benzodiazepines group.  Mr P Cheung submitted that if this Court accepts those evidence, the sentence for GBL should be the same as for diazepam.  Towards that aim, Mr P Cheung submitted the case of R v Gary Orton[6] for this Court’s consideration.

39.  Mr P Cheung had also raised the issue whether statistics concerning GHB should be taken into account by this Court when the defendant was convicted of trafficking GBL.

H. MITIGATION

40.  When mitigating on behalf of the defendant, Mr P Cheung submitted that the defendant has a long history of drug abuse, and was addicted to ICE at the time of his arrest.  Urine test conducted after his admission to Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre showed that it was positive for amphetamine.

41.  Mr P Cheung referred this Court to the tariff on the trafficking of ICE in HKSAR v Tam Yi-chun[7]and submitted that the starting point is one between 7-11 years for trafficking 10-70 grammes.

42.  Mr P Cheung informed this Court the defendant claimed about half of the ICE seized, ie 30 grammes, was for his own consumption.  The defendant claimed he took 0.3 gramme per does three times a day, 30 grammes would have been the supply for 33 days.

43.  Mr P Cheung then referred to the case of HKSAR v Tam Ling‑yuen[8]and pointed out the evidence here in support of each factor identified by the Court of Appeal when considering the question of self‑consumption.  Mr P Cheung submitted that on the evidence before this Court, the defendant has shown a significant portion of the ICE was for his own use and urged this Court to give the defendant a discount, relying on the case of HKSAR v Choi Chun-wo[9].

Assistance to Authorities

44.  There is no dispute that the defendant has given a non‑prejudicial statement leading to the arrest of a person who is now facing 27 counts of Trafficking in dangerous drugs.  The defendant intends to give evidence if necessary.  Mr P Cheung urged this Court to give the defendant an appropriate discount for the assistance he has given to the authorities.

45.  After the conclusion of the hearing, I was provided with another authority on the discount to be given to a defendant for assistance given to the authority: HKSAR v T.P.H.[10], which was handed down on 22 March 2019, for my consideration.

Other mitigating factors submitted by the defence

46.  Mr P Cheung also tendered three mitigation letters for my consideration.  They are from the defendant, his father and his elder sister.  I was informed that the defendant was a kind man and a filial son.  Unfortunately, the defendant’s mother passed away while he was in custody.  They all asked for leniency so that the defendant can start afresh early and to look after his aged father.

I. SENTENCE

47.  Trafficking dangerous drug is a serious offence. A person convicted of this offence on Indictment is liable to be sentenced for life and to a fine of $5M.

48.  In the circumstances of the present case, both offences were committed on the same day and the facts were closely linked, the dangerous drug ICE and the GBL in Count 1 was obviously connected with the ICE and GBL in Count 2.  The proper approach is to have regard to the total amounts of dangerous drugs (the ICE and the GBL) in Counts 1 and 2 so to arrive at an overall starting point (see HKSAR v Chow Yu Chi [11], HKSAR v Cheung Kwok Leung[12] and HKSAR v Wong To[13]).

49.  For the trafficking of more than one kind of drugs, there are two different approaches open to the sentencing judge (see HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin & Anor[14]):

(a) an “individual” approach where each component in a cocktail of drugs is looked at to establish the sentence relevant to each individual drug before an appropriate adjustment to the overall sentence was made; and

(b) a “combined” approach where a sentence for the most serious drug would be calculated before making an upward adjustment to take into account significant quantities of the other less serious drugs in terms of their potency.

50.  In the circumstances of the present case, as ICE and GBL are disparate in quantity and potency, the individual approach is more appropriate (see HKSAR v Ko Ka Hing[15]), though I will bear in mind that no matter which approach I adopt, it is the consideration of the overall starting point that is important.

Appropriate starting point for ICE

51.  The ICE involved in this case amounts to 63.79 grammes (48.54+15.25) (for the purpose of sentencing, I will ignore the 0.14 gramme of amphetamine).  According to the guidelines in Tam Yi Chun, the starting point after trial for trafficking 10-70 grammes of ICE is one between 7 - 11 years.  

52.  After considering the circumstances of this case and the amount of ICE involved, I am of the view that a starting point of 10 years is appropriate.

Self-consumption

53.  The defendant claimed about 30 grammes of the ICE was intended for his own use.  He did not give evidence to substantiate this claim.  Instead, Mr P Cheung pointed to the evidence in this case in support.  Such evidence, with reference to the factors pointed out in Tam Ling Yuen, included the following:

(a) The total quantity of ICE was 63.79 grammes, with a street value of $24,370;

(b) There were about 50 packets of ICE in the mini-storage of about 0.8 gramme each. There were 4-5 ice-bottles (for the consumption of ICE). There were about 16 packets of ICE and two ICE-bottles in the hotel;

(c) The mini-storage was rented in the defendant’s name. The hotel room was also booked in the defendant’s room, so the ICE was not carried in a public place;

(d) There was the presence of paraphernalia associated with the consumption of ICE: 4-5 in the mini-storage and 2 in the hotel room (the ICE-bottles);

(e) The defendant is an addict on ICE, as supported by the urine test report submitted to the court;

(f) The defendant said under caution after arrest that he purchased the ICE-bottles for his own consumption of ICE;

(g) The defendant traded GBL in exchange for ICE, he then sold the ICE to earn a living; and

(h) The defendant has one previous conviction of possession of ketamine in 2006 and was fined $1000.

54.  On the evidence before me, I accept that a significant amount of the ICE was intended for the defendant’s own consumption.  I will give the defendant a discount of 20%.

55.  With such a discount, the starting point for the trafficking of ICE is one of 8 years.

Starting point for GBL

56.  As for the GBL, the total amount involved is 2,015.30 grammes (1,906.30+109), not a small amount.  I accept fully Dr Chan’s evidence as disclosed in his two reports and before me in court.  For all intent and purposes, GHB and GBL should be treated as one and the same, as GBL is a prodrug of GHB and is converted to GHB after oral ingestion.

57.  Although GBL, when compared with drugs such as ketamine, heroin, ICE, cocaine and cannabis, causes relatively less body harm, and the addictiveness and effects of GBL are similar to those of benzodiazepines, I agree with the submission of Mr B Cheung.  This Court should not consider the appropriate sentence simply on the potency of the drug itself.  This court has to take into account the fact that GBL has been used in drug-facilitated sexual assaults, in particular when GBL can be disguised in flavoured drinks such as fruit juice to trick unsuspected victims.  Furthermore, when given sufficient quantity, the victim would suffer from anterograde amnesia, making it difficult for the victims to recall events that precipitated the sexual assault.  I also bear in mind that confusion and euphoria associated with GBL use would increase the chance of risky behaviour and accidental injuries.  For these reasons, I reject Mr P Cheung’s submission to treat GBL as diazepam (a form of benzodiazepines) for the purpose or sentencing.

58.  I will add here that in relation to the figures in Tables 1 and 2 relied upon by Dr Chan, they are scores relevant in the UK.  Whilst there might not be much difference in the scores for physical harm and dependency when comparing Chinese and non-Chinese, I am unable to say the same about social harm.  I cannot translate the figure in relation to social harm in the UK caused by GHB / GBL into the Hong Kong setting.

59.  There is no information before me how many cases involved GHB / GBL being used to facilitate sexual abuse.  While I take that feature of GBL into account, I will not sentence the defendant on the basis that GBL was being used frequently to facilitate sexual abuse.

60.  As seen from the statistics provided by the C&E, there was a steady increase in the seizure of GBL since 2015 though most of the culprits were not caught.  GBL appears to become more prevalent for use in Hong Kong.  Nevertheless, I am unable to say, on the figures before me, that GHB / GBL use here reached a point of being “prevalent”, particularly when one bears in mind that the defendant was arrested in May 2017, before the more substantial increase in number of cases and in quantities reported towards the latter half of 2017 and in 2018.  I therefore will not sentence this defendant on the basis of GBL being prevalent at the time of his commission of this offence. 

61.  In the case of Orton, Hon Gall J referred to the tariff for Methaqualone set down in AG v Chan Chi-man[16]and came to the conclusion that for the Diazapam (ie a form of benzodiazepines) the appropriate sentence should be about ⅔ of that appropriate for Methaqualone.  If one were to adopt that same approach, for 2 kg of benzodiazepines, the sentence would have been in the region of 2 years (⅔ of 3 years starting point).  

62.  Although I have indicated that I reject Mr P Cheung’s submission to simply treat GBL on a par with benzodiazepines, I will nevertheless use this sentence on benzodiazepines as a starting point and make an upward adjustment.

63.  Having given the matter some consideration, and bearing in mind the harm this particular drug has on the individual abuser, and its capability of being used to facilitate sexual abuse on unsuspected victims, which is harmful to our society at large, I am of the view that a sentence being 50 % higher than that of trafficking benzodiazepines would be appropriate.  The starting point for trafficking the GBL in this case is therefore one of 3 years.

Overall starting point

64.  I have already indicated that the individual approach is more appropriate in this case.  The “adjusted” starting point for ICE is one of 8 years (after having taken into account a significant proportion of ICE being intended for the defendant’s self-consumption). The starting point for GBL is one of 3 years.  

65.  I bear in mind that if all the dangerous drugs were ICE, a total of 2079.09 grammes (63.79 + 2015.30) would attract a starting point of 24 years.  If all were GBL, the starting point would still be 3 years.  

66.  I will conduct a conversion test to see what sentences will result.  If one takes the common point of 3 years, which is triggered by 10 grammes of ICE or 2000 grammes of GBL, the conversion rate would be 1:200.  If all were converted to ICE, 2015.30 / 200 will yield converted ICE of 10.08 grammes, bringing the total of ICE to 73.87 (63.79 + 10.08).  The starting point for 73.87 grammes would be 11 years.  If all were converted to GBL, 63.79 x 200 will yield converted GBL of 12,758 grammes, bringing the total of GBL to 14,773.3 grammes.  The starting point for 14,773.3 grammes of GBL would, in my view, be around 6 years.

67.  Having considered that if all dangerous drugs were ICE the starting point would be one of 11 years, and bearing in mind that I have accepted a significant proportion of the ICE seized were intended for the defendant’s own consumption, I am of the view that a combined starting point of 9 years is appropriate here.

Discount for plea

68.  The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity.  Though this case has taken quite some time to reach conclusion, it is through no fault of the defendant as it is receiving for this Court to receive evidence in order to decide the appropriate sentence for the trafficking of GBL.  The defendant will be given the full ⅓ discount.

Further discount for assistance given to the authorities

69.  There is no dispute that as a result of information provided by the defendant, a certain person was arrested and charged with 27 counts of Trafficking in dangerous drugs.  The defendant intends to give evidence if necessary.

70.  Having considered the valuable assistance provided by the defendant, I am of the view that a total discount of about 45% (inclusive of the ⅓ discount for his guilty plea) is appropriate.  In coming to this, I have considered relevant authorities, including the case of T.P.H. and those cited therein.

71.  Whilst I understand the hardship suffered by the defendant’s family, in particular the defendant’s father, there is no proper ground for me to further reduce the sentence.

72.  For the two offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs, the sentence to be imposed is therefore one of 5 years’ imprisonment.

Actual sentence

73.  (a)  1^st count – 5 years’ imprisonment; and

(b)  2 ^nd count – 5 years’ imprisonment.

Both sentences to run concurrently, making a total of 5 years’ imprisonment.

Annex

Table 1: Comparison of GHB / GBL with other commonly known dangerous drug

Physical harm and their class in Misuse of Drugs Act

	Physical harmful effect	Class in Misuse of Drugs Act*
Heroin	Decreased consciousness, coma, respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting Skin, joints, lung, brain, heart infections; and HIV infection related to intravenous injections	A
Methamphetamine	Confusion, hypertension, increase heart rate, fever, heart attack, stroke, seizures, renal failure	A
Cocaine	Confusion, hypertension, increase heart rate, fever, heart attack, stroke, seizures, renal failure	A
Ketamine	Confusion, coma, increase blood pressure, urinary bladder inflammation, abdominal pain	B
Cannabis	Confusion, increase heart rate, dizziness, nausea, vomiting	B
GHB/GBL	Confusion, memory loss, coma, respiratory depression, decrease heart rate, hypotension	C

*Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (United Kingdom). The Misuse of Drugs Act sets out three separate categories, Class A, Class B and Class C. Class A drugs represent those deemed most dangerous, and so carry the harshest punishments. Class C represents those thought to have the least capacity for harm, and so the Act demands more lenient punishment.

+ Table 1 extracted from Dr CHAN Chi-keung’s statement dated 30-11-2018.

Annex

Table 2: Comparison of GHB / GBL with other commonly known dangerous drug

Rational scale to assess the harm of abusive drugs

	Physical harm score	Dependence score	Social harm score
Heroin	2.78	3	2.54
Methamphetamine	1.81	1.67	1.5
Cocaine	2.33	2.39	2.17
Ketamine	2	1.54	1.69
Cannabis	0.99	1.51	1.5
GHB / GBL	0.86	1.19	1.3

The scores were based on four-point scale, with 0 being no risk, 1 some, 2 moderate, and 3 extreme risk. The rating was performed in United Kingdom by psychiatrists and a wide range of experts in chemistry, pharmacology, forensic science, and other medical specialties.

+ Table 2 extracted from Dr CHAN Chi-keung’s statement dated 30-11-2018.

Annex

Table 3: Table concerning GBL and GHB cases

Period	No. of Cases	No. of Persons Arrested	No. of Persons Prosecuted	Quantity (Total Gross Weight)
Jan – Jun 2014	3	5	3	169.5 gm GBL
Jul – Dec 2014	0	0	0	0
Jan – Jun 2015	1	1	1	25.1 gm GBL
Jul – Dec 2015	0	0	0	0
Jan – Jun 2016	2	2	2	4 ml GBL and 32.66 gm GBL
Jul – Dec 2016	3	3	3	27.66 gm GBL
Jan – Jun 2017	1	3	2	2,015.3 gm GBL
Jul – Dec 2017	1	1	1	4.32 gm GHB and 0.41 gm GBL
Jan – Jun 2018	1	2	1	13.3 gm GBL
Jul – Nov 2018	0	0	0	0

+ Table 3 extracted from statement of WDSIP CHUNG Man-ling dated 12/12/2018.

Annex

Table 4: Table concerning GBL and GHB cases

Period	No. of Cases	No. of Persons Arrested	No. of Persons Prosecuted	Quantity (Total Gross Weight)
Jan – Dec 2002	1	1	1	1.4 gram
Jan 2003 – Dec 2011	0	0	0	0
Jan – Jun 2012	2	6	1	17.13 gram & 808,000 ml
Jul – Dec 2012	0	0	0	0
Jan – Jun 2013	0	0	0	0
Jul – Dec 2013	2	2	1	1.8 gram
Jan – Jun 2014	1	1	1	2 ml
Jul – Dec 2014	0	0	0	0
Jan – Jun 2015	31	1	1	96,215 ml
Jul – Dec 2015	21	0	0	45,063 ml
Jan – Jun 2016	84	0	0	229,050 ml
Jul – Dec 2016	44	0	0	1,000 gram & 128,630 ml
Jan – Jun 2017	2	0	0	6,720 ml
Jul – Dec 2017	70	2	2	81.97 gram & 116,821 ml
Jan – Jun 2018	91	10	8	73,747 gram & 126,825 ml
Jul – Nov 2018	68	0	0	124,675 gram & 3,135 ml

+Table 4 extracted from Customs Inspector YEUNG Ming-ko dated 11/12/2018.

Annex

Table 5: Updated table concerning GBL and GHB cases

Period	Total no. of Case (Quantity)	No. of case			No. of Case with person arrested (Quantity)	No. of Person arrested (Prosecuted)
		Import (Quantity)	Export (Quantity)	Transshipment (Quantity)
Jan – Dec 2002	1 (1.4 gram)	1 (1.4 gram)	0	0	1 (1.4 gram)	1 (1)
Jan 2003 – Dec 2011	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jan – Jun 2012	2 (17.13 gram & 808,000 ml)	2 (17.13 gram & 808,000 ml)	0	0	2 (17.13 gram & 808,000 ml)	6 (1)
Jul – Dec 2012	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jan – Jun 2013	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jul – Dec 2013	2 (1.8 gram)	2 (1.8 gram)	0	0	2 (1.8 gram)	2 (1)
Jan – Jun 2014	1 (2 ml)	1 (2 ml)	0	0	1 (2 ml)	1 (1)
Jul – Dec 2014	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jan – Jun 2015	31 (96,215 ml)	2 (6,142 ml)	29 (90,073 ml)	0	1 (5,782 ml)	1(1)
Jul – Dec 2015	21 (45,063 ml)	0	21 (45,063 ml)	0	0	0
Jan – Jun 2016	84 (229,050 ml)	0	84 (229,050 ml)	0	0	0
Jul – Dec 2016	44 (1,000 gram & 128,630 ml)	0	43 (1,000 gram & 122,980 ml)	1 (5,650 ml)	0	0
Jan – Jun 2017	2 (6,720 ml)	0	2 (6,720 ml)	0	0	0
Jul – Dec 2017	70 (81.97 gram & 116,821 ml)	2 (81.97 gram)	60 (107,033 ml)	8 (9,788 ml)	2 (81.97 gram)	2 (2)
Jan – Jun 2018	91 (73,747 gram & 126,825 ml)	10 (13,634 gram & 59,125 ml)	57 (34,999 gram & 64,890 ml)	24 (25,114 gram & 2,810 ml)	7 (59,125 ml)	10 (8)
Jul – Nov 2018	68 (124,675 gram & 3,135 ml)	3 (3,240 gram & 3,135 ml)	30 (57,297 gram)	35 (64,138 gram)	0 (0)	0 (0)

+Table 5 extracted from statement of Customs Inspector YEUNG Ming-ko dated 1/2/2019.