The defendant pleaded guilty before me and was duly convicted of both counts after he admitted to the facts.
The Summary of Facts in relation to HCCC 232/2013.
The offence disclosed that as a result on an operation against a drug syndicate mounted by the Narcotics Bureau in early September 2012, the defendant was observed by a police officer to have made contact with Lee Kai-kwong, and both of them left Hong Kong for the mainland.
Later, on 14 September 2012, police officer lay ambush near a check-in counter at the Departure Hall of the Hong Kong International Airport, and three men, including Lee Kai-kwong, was stopped.
Upon a search of Lee Kai-kwong’s suitcase, 11 plastic bags of dangerous drugs, which was later confirmed to be 1.3877 kilograms of crystalline solid containing 1.31572 kilograms of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “Ice”, were found inside a secret compartment.
Lee Kai-kwong was booked on to a Wing On Travel Tour to Japan. The street value of the seized drugs was estimated at $1,144,852.
Officers from the Narcotics Bureau went to the defendant’s home to execute a search warrant. Among the items seized was a receipt issued by Wing On Travel in the name of Lee Kai-kwong, copies of Lee Kai-kwong’s ID card, and passport, and a set of scales.
Upon arrest and under the caution for the offence of conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug, the defendant said he acted as a middleman linking Ah Kwong Chai with someone called Law Chi-keung to transport “Ice” to Japan. He also said he charged $30,000 for this job as the middleman.
In a video-recorded interview taken later on the same day, the defendant said that Kwong Chai is Lee Kai-kwong, whom he became acquainted when they both attended the course together. He later met up with one Law Chi-keung and learned that Law wanted to recruit someone to bring “Ice” Japan as a courier.
Knowing that Lee Kai-kwong was in debt, he introduced Lee Kai-kwong to Law Chi-keung. He knew that Law would pay Lee Kai-kwong $70,000 for the job.
The defendant was the one who had asked Lee Kai-kwong to obtain a passport. A flight was booked for Lee Kai-kwong to join a guided tour organised by Wing On Travel.
The defendant described how he and Lee Kai-kwong had gone to Shenzhen and met up with Law, and how, eventually, as suitcase which the defendant believed to be containing drugs were given Lee Kai-kwong to bring to Hong Kong.
The defendant said someone called Ah Kei went with him to purchase the set of scales, and to book a flight to Japan on 15 September 2012.
The defendant’s job was to weigh the dangerous drug with the set of scales he had purchased after arrival in Japan. The defendant said Law gave him 140,000 Japanese yen and a few thousand Hong Kong dollars as expenses, and he passed them on to Lee Kai-kwong.
The defendant admitted that between an unknown date in August 2012, and 14 September 2012, he conspired with Lee Kai-kwong and Law to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug.
Now, the facts of High Court case 386 of 2013.
On 3 May 2012, a male, So Wai-chun, and a female Hung Yuen‑fan, were intercepted by the police at the Cathay Pacific Counter at the Departure Hall of the Hong Kong International Airport. A search of So revealed 14 packets of what later confirmed to be 986.31 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 958.93 grammes of “Ice” tied to his waist, thighs, left leg near the ankle and his shoe pads.
A search of the woman Hung revealed 13 packets of what later confirmed to be 985.25 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 954.1 gram of “Ice” hidden in his abdomen, legs and under the insoles of her sport shoes.
The retail street value of the seized dangerous drug was estimated to be $1,496,414. Both So and Hung had joined a Wing On Travel Tour to Australia.
The defendant was arrested by the police on 28 February 2013 at the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre in connection with this case.
During a video-recorded interview taken at Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre, the defendant admitted he invited So to transport dangerous drugs to Australia acting as a middleman between So, and the man called Tong Ka-yin.
Tong agreed to pay So seventy to eighty-thousand dollars for the job. The defendant accompanied So to apply for a passport and to buy clothing, including shoes to wear during the tour. The defendant was aware a woman would also transport dangerous drugs to Australia. Arrangement was made for So to meet this woman at a restaurant. The defendant, Tong Ka-yin and another person called Kwong Tau‑chai were also present. Tong told the woman to book the tour and said the shoes to be worn by So had to be hollowed out to conceal the dangerous drug. Then So was instructed to wear stretchy pants to conceal the dangerous drug.
So was told to book the room in a hotel and Law Chi-keung packed the dangerous drug “Ice” on to So and the woman.
The defendant admitted that between an unknown date in April 2012, and 3 May 2012, he conspired with So Chung, Hung Yuen-fan, Tong Ka-yin, Law Chi-keung and the person called Kwong Tau‑chai and other persons unknown to unlawfully traffic in “Ice”.
The defendant is a 60-year-old man with no previous conviction. I was told he had been out of a job since 2010 and had to support his son who is now a 17-year-old student.
The defendant decided to make easy money and ended up being involved in these conspiracies. Mr McNamara mitigating on behalf of the defendant frankly admitted that there is not very much he can say for the defendant. He asked me to bear in mind the defendant’s age in that he will have to spend most of his remaining life in prison, and the fact that this is the first time the defendant had infringed the law.
Mr McNamara also asked me to consider the quantities of the two cases globally to reach the appropriate sentence.
Both the defendant and his son had written to me asking for leniency. The defendant was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug. Although no quantity was mentioned in either of the particulars of the two counts, we now know what the quantities were actually involved. In the 1st count, 1.31572 kilograms, and the 2nd count 1,913.03 kilograms.
For the trafficking of “Ice”, the Court of Appeal has set down sentencing guideline. In the case of the AttorneyGeneral v Ching Kwok Hung[1991] 2HKLR125 for the trafficking of over 600 grammes of “Ice”, the starting point is upwards from 18 years.
Unlike the trafficking of heroin where the Court of Appeal had in the case of HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas [2009] 2 HKLRD437 set down further guidelines of trafficking over 600 grammes of narcotics. There are no guidelines for trafficking over 600 grammes of “Ice”.
In any event, I am of the view that what the Court of Appeal has said in the case of Abdallah is relevant in the following two aspects. The first one is that room must be left for sentences which falls into the highest range. And the second point is that the court needs to take into account aggravating circumstances such as an international element and enhance the sentence which would otherwise be imposed.
The question I have to decide is, therefore, how many years upwards from 18 years should I peg the starting point, and then bearing in mind the aggravating factor of international element to enhance the sentence.
Now, in coming to the starting point, I have to consider the amount of narcotics involved, the role played by the defendant, and all the circumstances of the offence. I, of course, have taken into account the defendant’s clear record and the fact that he had been able to remain out of trouble for 60 years.
I am of the view that the 1st count, the starting point should be 19 years, and two years’ enhancement to take into account the international element. So, the pre-deduction sentence is one of 21 years.
For the 2nd count I am of the view the starting point should be 20 years, an enhancement of two years making a pre-deduction sentence of 22 years.
The defendant had offered a timely plea and is entitled to the full one-third discount. There are no other mitigating circumstances to further reduce this sentence.
So, for the 1st count from the 21 years, a one-third discount would result in 14 years’ imprisonment. For the 2nd count of 22 years, a one-third discount would result in 14 years and eight months. And, clearly, I have to consider the question of totality.
So, I will deal with it this way. The total narcotics involved were 3.22875 kilograms of “Ice”. So, I am of the view that an appropriate starting point for that amount in the present circumstances is one of 23 years.
Again, two years will be added as enhancement for the international element. So, the pre-deduction sentence for all the amount is 25 years, and a one-third discount of 25 years would result at 16 years and 8 months.
So, in order to achieve that, the actual sentence would be for the 1st count the imprisonment of 14 years. The 2nd count imprisonment of 14 years and 8 months. For the sentence of the 2nd count, 2 years and 8 months to run consecutively to the 14 years imposed on the 1st count, thus making a total of 16 years and 8 months.
(Discussion re clarification of sentence not required)
So, I am sorry, I just have to redo it because I mixed up the two counts.
So, in fact, the 1st count the starting point is 20 years, so enhanced two years to twenty-two. And so the after one‑third discount 14 years and 8 months. The 2nd count the starting point is 19 years, enhancement 2 years, so, 21 years, one-third discount, 14 years.
So, basically, what I have said earlier is just the other way around for the 1st and the 2nd count, just change them around.
So, the same would apply as to the 23 years starting point for the total amount and the 2 years enhancement, making the pre‑deduction of 25 years.
So, the totality that I work out is still 16 years and 8 months. So, the 1st count, the actual sentence is 14 years and 8 months. The 2nd count, 14 years. Of this 14 years, 2 years is to run consecutively to the 14 years 8 months making a total of 16 years 8 months.