HKSAR v. Lai Chin Ting

HCCC 155/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 155 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug contrary to section (4)(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

You have admitted that on 8 November 2014 at the Customs Arrival Hall at Lok Ma Chau Control Point, Lok Ma Chau, you unlawfully trafficked in 988 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 977 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 1.66 grammes of a powder containing 1.09 grammes of ketamine and two tablets and a tablet fragment containing a total of 0.04 grammes of methamphetamine. Methamphetamine hydrochloride is commonly known as “Ice”.

On 8 November at about 6 am, you were intercepted at the Customs Clearance Green Channel of the Customs Arrival Hall at Lok Ma Chau by a customs officer. You were then brought to a room for a body search. Upon search, found wrapped around the waist of your body were the drugs: two packets were at the front of your waist, and two packets were at the back. They were then wrapped around your body with cling film.

In the pocket of your sweater were found the other drugs in tablet form, and in two smaller ziplock bags in power form. These drugs were all of which are the drugs mentioned in the charge.

The street value of the drugs was estimated at $396,420.40.

The travel movement record provided by the Hong Kong Immigration showed that you had left Hong Kong via the Lok Ma Chau Control Point at about 5 am that morning and returned at 6 am the same day via the same crossing. Therefore, you had crossed Customs going to China and returning to Hong Kong in less than one hour with the drugs.

Mr William Lam, your counsel, has mitigated on your behalf, and I have taken into account what he has said for you. You and your mother have also written letters to the court. I have taken note of the contents thereof.

You are now aged 24 and you have received education up to Secondary Level 3. You are single and live with your mother and brother. You are not a drug abuser. You have previously worked as a waiter at a fast‑food restaurant, but shortly before you were arrested you were unemployed. You have one previous conviction for misleading a police officer in 2012 to which you were sentenced to serve 160 hours of community service.

I am informed that the reason why you committed this offence was because of your greed. You were only to be paid $1,000 for taking these drugs from China to Hong Kong.

From your letter you have shown me that you are deeply remorseful and regretful for your wrongdoing, and that you were lured into the commission of this offence as a result of your adverse peer pressure.

Your mother has written a very heartfelt letter for you. I am told at birth you were born at a light weight and you had problems eating and had to undergo medical treatment of which later you went through an operation which was not successful which made you susceptible to infection and weakness in your later years.

Sadly, as a result of your physical development, conflicts arose with your father and, eventually, your parents divorced. Your mother then looked after your psychological development. She too says it is probably the undesirable peers whom you were associating with that led you to commit this offence. I am told you have a very good relationship with your brother. You both ask for leniency from the court.

Your counsel has referred to a guideline case which, as you will now know, for trafficking in drugs there are guidelines or tariffs set down by the Court of Appeal in sentencing. Generally, the amount of drugs is the important factor. Young age or youth or a clear record is not a mitigating factor to reduce the sentence as trafficking is a very very serious offence.

The drugs to which you were trafficking in was “Ice”. The other narcotics are minimal in quantity, and as they are insignificant in amount I shall not be taking them into account when sentencing you.

The guideline case for sentencing in “Ice” is HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun. The Tam Yi Chun guidelines follow that of HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas.

The guidelines starting point for traffickers after trial, subject to enhancement, for 600 to 1,200 grammes is a sentence of between 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment.

Defendant, had you been convicted trial for the amount of 977 grammes of “Ice”, I would have taken a starting point of 21 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. You were bringing these drugs from China into Hong Kong. That is recognised as an international element and calls for an enhancement of the starting point.

The amount of drugs was below one kilogramme, and the Court of Appeal in Chung Ping Kun CACC 85/2014 suggested a broad guideline for a level of enhancement of between 500 and 1,000 grammes to be between 1 and 2 years’ imprisonment.

In those circumstances, as it is below 1,000 grammes (or one kilogramme), I enhance the starting point to one of 1 year and 11 months. That would make a sentencing point, had you been convicted after trial of 23 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Your strongest mitigating factor is your plea of guilty. In those circumstances, that sentence shall be reduced by one‑third and you shall serve a term of 15 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.