HKSAR v. Lam Wai Man

HCCC 188/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 188 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant has been convicted on his own plea of one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

The Particulars of Offence provide that on 5 November 2014 at the Arrival Hall, Hong Kong International Airport, Lantau Island in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 4,421 grammes of a solid containing 3,518 grammes of cocaine.

The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides that in the evening on 5 November 2014, at the Arrival Hall of the Hong Kong International Airport, Lantau Island, in Hong Kong, the defendant was intercepted by a Customs and Excise officer upon his arrival to Hong Kong from Brazil. He was told to open his suitcase for a search. The defendant then used his keys to open the three locks on the suitcase which was found to contain six cans of purported pineapples placed underneath some clothes. When being asked what the six cans were, the defendant did not respond. One can was opened for examination, and white powders were found inside. The defendant was handed over to the police, and was arrested for trafficking in a dangerous drug. Under caution, the defendant stated that he trafficked in dangerous drugs because he was in debt.

The following were found in the defendant’s physical possession: cash of HK$2,180; cash of US$785,; cash of Brazilian real $164 (approximately HK$480); and one mobile phone.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview, under caution, the defendant said inter alia:

(1) The defendant owed credit card companies HK$120,000. In August 2014, an acquaintance called “Ah Choi” told the defendant that he could arrange a drug delivery job for the defendant. The defendant would be paid HK$18,000 first, and another HK$20,000 would be given to him upon the completion of this delivery job. The defendant only knew that the job involved delivery of dangerous drugs. He did not know what kind of drugs they were and how much was involved.

(2) Ah Choi arranged for the air tickets. He told the defendant that he had to go to Peru. Ah Choi gave him cash of HK$18,000; e-tickets to and from Sao Paulo; and a piece of paper with an address in Brazil written on it. The defendant was told to leave Hong Kong on 26 October 2014.

(3) The defendant left Hong Kong for Shanghai on 26 October 2014. He then went to Abu Dhabi and finally arrived at Sao Paolo a day later.

(4) Upon arrival, he went to a hotel as instructed. He subsequently met up with a Brazilian man named “Mike”. Mike gave him a bag of clothes together with six cans of purported pineapples. Mike asked the defendant to bring them back to Hong Kong without telling him what was contained inside the cans. Mike put the six cans into the defendant’s suitcase. The defendant admitted that he suspected that the cans contained dangerous drugs.

(5) The defendant left Brazil on 3 November 2014 with the suitcase containing the six cans of purported pineapples. He came back to Hong Kong via Abu Dhabi and Shanghai.

(6) Ah Choi would contact him upon his arrival in Hong Kong. The defendant did not know how Ah Choi would collect the dangerous drugs from him. The defendant intended to bring them back home first after his arrival.

(7) The US and Brazilian currencies found on him were part of the money exchanged and used in connection with this trafficking trip. He claimed that the HK$2,180 seized was his own money.

The six cans of purported pineapples contained a total of 4,421 grammes of a solid containing 3,518 grammes of cocaine. Their estimated retail value at the time in Hong Kong was HK$4,540,367.

In the Summary of Facts, the defendant expressly admitted that he was unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug as particularised in the charge against him.

By way of personal background, the defendant is 57 years of age. He was born in Hong Kong in April 1958. The defendantreceived education up to secondary Form 5 level in Hong Kong. Prior to his arrest, the defendant was a transportation worker earning around $10,000 per month.

The defendant is divorced, with no children. He lives alone in Tuen Mun. His family had migrated to the United States about 20-odd years ago.

The defendant has a clear record.

By way of mitigation, Mr Keith Fung accepts that the only meaningful mitigation factor in the present case is the defendant’s guilty plea, for which he asks for the full one‑third discount.

A mitigation letter was handed up to the court, wherein the defendant expressed deep remorse for having committed the offence. The defendantacknowledged in the letter that he committed the offence out of momentary greediness, having been led astray by others.

The defendant has been convicted on one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 4,421 grammes of a solid containing 3,518 grammes of cocaine.

Sentencing for trafficking in cocaine is aligned to the guidelines for trafficking in heroin. In HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas [2009] 2 HKC 197, the Court of Appeal has laid down the tariffs for trafficking in large quantities of heroin. For trafficking in between 1,200 to 4,000 grammes of heroin, the guideline starting point for traffickers after trial would be 23 to 26 years’ imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal in the Abdallah case also held that it would be an aggravating factor calling for the enhancement of the starting point where an international element is involved, which is the situation in the present case. The Court of Appeal further held that the enhancement for amounts above 1 kilogramme should not be less than 2 years’ imprisonment.

In my view, following the guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal in the Abdallah case and based on the quantity of the narcotic involved, the proper initial starting point for sentence should be 25 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

This should be enhanced by 2 years for the international element in the present case, making it a starting point of 27 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

I will give the defendant the full one-third discount for his guilty plea.

Defendant, please stand up.

The defendant is accordingly sentenced to 18 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.