COURT: The defendant, Chan Chun-lok, pleaded guilty before me to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The offence took place on 26 October 2016 and it concerned 4.14 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 4.05 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’.
Acting on information, at around 1157 hours on the day in question, at the taxi stand of MTR Yuen Long Station, police officers spotted the defendant carrying a black plastic bag and getting onto a New Territories taxi. Feeling suspicious, the officers tailed the taxi. The defendant got off from the taxi outside MTR Sheung Shui Station with the black plastic bag. The police officers intercepted the defendant and, after a brief struggle, the defendant was subdued.
Upon search of the black plastic bag the defendant was carrying, four packets of suspected ‘Ice’ subsequently certified to contain a total of 4.14 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 4.05 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride were found. The defendant was arrested. Under caution, he said: “Ah Sir, I’m only getting $10,000 from the others to carry the ‘Ice’. I haven’t received the money yet”.
Between 1520 hours and 1545 hours on the same day, a video-recorded interview was conducted with the defendant in which he stated inter alia the following, under caution:
(i) About two weeks ago, he got to know a male named “Ah Wing” in a public basketball court. Ah Wing offered him a job to traffic in ‘Ice’, so he gave his phone number to Ah Wing.
(ii) At around 0800 hours on 26 October 2016, Ah Wing called and told him to pick up a bag of ‘Ice’ adjacent to a trash bin outside Exit A of Yuen Long MTR Station and he would be paid $10,000.
(iii) He went to Yuen Long MTR Station and picked up the bag of ‘Ice’. He then took a taxi to Sheung Shui. He was then arrested.
The ‘Ice’ seized carried a street value of $1,424,160.
The criminal record of the defendant shows that he has no similar conviction. He has two previous convictions for selling liquor without a licence. He was fined on both occasions.
According to the antecedents statement of the defendant, the defendant is now 23 years old, locally born. He received education up to Form 3. The defendant had previously worked as a hairdresser, a kitchen worker, a vehicle attendant and a construction site worker. He was unemployed at the time of his arrest.
Mr Yuen, in mitigation, submits that according to the tariff set down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437, the tariff for trafficking in 4,000 to 15,000 grammes of ‘Ice’ is 26 to 30 years’ imprisonment. Given that 4.05 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’ was seized, Mr Yuen submits that the starting point should be about 26 years.
Mr Yuen submits that the only mitigating factor in this case is the guilty plea of the defendant which was tendered at the very first opportunity. In fact, at the time of his arrest, the defendant confessed immediately and he also confessed in the cautioned video interview. He told the police how he came to be recruited by Ah Wing to traffic in dangerous drug; how he came to know Ah Wing; how he got hold of the ‘Ice’ in question and the reward that he was promised. Mr Yuen submits that the defendant’s plea to the charge is timely; not only has it saved the prosecution’s and the court’s time for trial, it also demonstrates the defendant’s remorse.
In a letter written by the defendant, the defendant expresses his remorse for what he had done. He feels sorry for his family members and he promises to turn a new leaf upon discharge from prison. The defendant pleads for a lenient sentence.
In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind the nature of the drugs and the quantity of the drugs. I have considered the facts of this case and all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Yuen. I agree with Mr Yuen’s submissions that given that 4.05 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’ was involved in the present case, applying the tariff as set down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Abdallah, a starting point of 26 years should be adopted.
The defendant pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. He is entitled to the full one-third reduction for his guilty plea. That would bring the sentence down to 17 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. Apart from the guilty plea of the defendant, there is no effective mitigating factor which can further reduce the sentence.
For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 17 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.