HKSAR v. Chen Yumei and Another

HCCC 164/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 164 OF 2013

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: D1 and D2, you have each pleaded guilty and been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs, that is 148.98 grammes of a crystalline solid, containing 132.46 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as 'Ice'.

In addition, D1, you pleaded guilty to and have been convicted of a single offence of possession of dangerous drugs, that is 1.33 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.25 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as 'Ice', and 0.18 grammes of cannabis in herbal form.

The facts, and I have tried to make them as brief as possible, are as follows. Firstly, D1, as far as you are concerned, on 11 December 2012, at about 9.56 am, you were intercepted at the Customs Arrival Hall of Lok Ma Chau Control Point by Customs officers. A search of your handbag revealed a purple plastic bag containing six foil teabags, each of which contained suspected dangerous drugs.

Subsequent analysis confirmed a total of 148.98 grammes of crystalline solid containing 132.46 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Arrested and cautioned, you said the following:

(1) The teabags were to be taken to your home in Mongkok where you had to await a phone call.

(2) You were helping someone to carry them.

(3) You denied knowledge of the drugs.

(4) You said you did not know who you were carrying them for or how much reward you would receive.

Your mobile phone received calls and WhatsApp messages monitored by the Customs officers. You agreed to take part in a controlled operation. The messages and the calls were from ‘Hubby Ted’. He gave you the phone number of ‘Tai Kwun’ to whom you were to give back the things.

You called Tai Kwun, who we know is D2, and arranged to meet at Exit A2 of Mongkok MTR Station. You were conveyed there by Customs officers.

Approximately at 4.27, after a phone call, you waited there. D2 then approached you and you gave him the purple plastic bag containing the dangerous drugs. D2 was then arrested.

Your room at the 5th floor of 294 Portland Street, Mongkok, was searched and the Customs officers found a box containing three plastic bags. The plastic bags contained 1.3 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.25 grammes of 'Ice', 39 zopiclone tablets, a Part I poison, and 0.18 grammes of herbal cannabis. Also electronic scales and some foil teabags were found.

Under caution, you said the dangerous drugs in the box was 'Ice', melon seeds and marihuana. You said they were for self-consumption.

The total value of the dangerous drugs seized was, for the 'Ice', $107,321.34 and the cannabis was $21.42. You now admit knowledge of the dangerous drugs.

D2, the facts as far as you are concerned are as follows. After making arrangements by telephone to meet D1 at Exit A2 at Mongkok MTR Station around 4.27 on 12 December, you then approached her and she passed you a purple plastic bag containing the dangerous drugs, that is the dangerous drugs I have referred to in respect of D1.

You were immediately arrested by Customs officers. After caution, you said you had arranged to meet ‘Ah Mei’ to get some ‘cold stuff’. You would bring it home and then you would go out to distribute it to someone.

Later, you gave a video-recorded interview under caution and you stated the following:

(1) Earlier that day, you had crossed the border with D1, although you had walked separately.

(2) You had called her boyfriend who instructed you to go back to Hong Kong first.

(3) D1 called you later and told you to meet her at Mongkok MTR Station.

The dangerous drugs, we now know, were 148.8 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 132.46 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride with an estimated street value of $106,371.72.

You admit trafficking in dangerous drugs.

Dealing with your records: D1, you are a lady of hitherto clear record; D2, you have 13 previous convictions, on eight occasions of which were drug-related, three involving trafficking in dangerous drugs. Your last conviction was in 2012.

Both of you have accepted the antecedents statements that were put before my colleague. From those statements, it is shown, D1, that you are 37, born on the mainland and educated to form 3. At the time of your arrest, you were a saleslady. You are a divorcee. You consume 'Ice' but you have no major health problems that you have divulged.

D2, you are 38 years old. You were born in the mainland and educated to form 3. You are residing with your parents and younger brother. At the time of arrest, you were working in transportation, earning about $10,000 per month. You have, I understand, been addicted to 'Ice' for some time and you have no major health problems.

On your behalf, Mr Adams supplied me with written mitigation which I have read and considered. Today he put before me certain other matters which I have taken into account. First of all, in the written mitigation which is submitted along with sentencing authorities, he told me that you came to Hong Kong in 2006 whilst your family remained in China, that you are divorced. Unfortunately, you had a son of the union who tragically died when only 2. This led to depression and your husband left you. You then met the gentleman known as ‘Hubby Ted’, Chu Ka-kit(?). Prior to that meeting, you had no involvement with dangerous drugs but he introduced you to dangerous drugs. The dangerous drugs that were found in your flat were for self-consumption, the implication being that, by that stage, you had become addicted. It was Chu who asked you to carry the 'Ice' in respect of Charge 1 across the border.

After interception, you co-operated fully with the Customs, taking part in the controlled delivery to D2 which led to D2’s arrest. You indicated an intention to plead guilty from an early stage. You also gave evidence against Chu at trial. You are of clear record.

Additionally, today, Mr Adams asked me to extend beyond the usual 50 per cent discount for the co-operation you have given because you had given extra co-operation which had led to the arrest of Chu. I am told that another man was arrested along with him but it was not possible to charge him, the evidence was not strong enough. You have co-operated fully with Customs at the scene, agreeing to this controlled delivery, and as we know, you gave evidence against Chu at his trial.

It is agreed, and reflects very well on Mr Laskey, demonstrating the prosecutor’s fairness, that you gave evidence entirely in accordance with your agreement and despite the fact that no conviction was recorded, I am going to give you the full discount.

In respect of you, D2, Mr Lo had submitted mitigation also, along with authorities. Therein, there is a history of your employment. He acknowledges your poor record and your addiction to 'Ice' since 1999 and goes on to suggest a starting point of 11 years with an enhancement of 6 months, thereafter to be discounted for the assistance you have given the authorities.

Today he pointed out that you had also given information which had led to the arrest of Chu. Like D1, despite the fact that Mr Chu was not convicted, I take the view that you complied with your agreement with the prosecution and gave evidence which could not be faulted. Therefore, you too will have full discount.

I turn now to the actual sentences themselves. I will deal first of all with you, D1.

D1, I have a lot of sympathy for you. Until you came across this character, Mr Chu, it would seem that you were non-addicted, that he led you astray. You had a clear record. You had had a fairly tragic life with the loss of your son and I do offer my condolences for that. You foolishly agreed to carry the drugs across the border at the behest of Mr Chu. Once you were caught, your co-operation with the authorities was, in my opinion, extraordinary.

You agreed to the controlled delivery of the drugs, went through with it and complied fully. You gave information which led to the arrest of Mr Chu and another person and you freely came along to court and gave evidence. I take the view that there should be a slightly larger discount than 50 per cent to reflect that extraordinary co-operation.

On Charge 1, I take a starting point of 11 years. This will be enhanced by 6 months for the international aspect of bringing it into Hong Kong. I will thereafter give what is slightly less than 55 per cent discount and you will be sentenced to prison of 5 years and 3 months.

In respect of the possession charge, which is Charge 3, I believe, on the indictment, I take a starting point in that case of 15 months’ imprisonment. That will be reduced to 10 months for your plea of guilty. That will be served concurrently because if you add the 'Ice' together and the cocaine - the cannabis is not of any great importance - it would not affect the level of sentence.

So your total imprisonment will be one of 5 years and 3 months.

D2, the charge you face is number 2 on the indictment, I believe. I apply exactly the same formula, that is a starting point of 11 years, enhanced by 6 months for the international aspect.

The normal discount would be one of 50 per cent; however, you too have given extraordinary levels of co-operation. You gave information regarding earlier transactions which you alleged against Mr Chu. I am told that you also gave information which led to his arrest and therefore I am going to give you not quite as much discount as D1, but slightly more than 50 per cent.

You will be sentenced to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.