HKSAR v. Lau Yan Ling

HCCC 101/2018

[2018] HKCFI 1754

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 101 OF 2018

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant, Lau Yan-ling, was charged with two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. She pleaded guilty before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for her sentence.

Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant

On the 16th of May 2017, the defendant was spotted by the police walking out of a building in Mong Kok carrying a brown paper bag. When she was intercepted and searched, the police found inside the brown paper bag a plastic bag. And inside the plastic bag, the police found what was later confirmed to be 1 kilogramme of a crystalline solid containing 954 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’.

The defendant was arrested and cautioned. The defendant said she had received $500 to deliver the ‘Ice’ to someone. She volunteered to lead the police to a flat on the 24th floor of the same building. The police executed a search warrant at the premises.

Inside, the police found the following:

a. Four plastic bags containing a total of 84.29 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 81.93 grammes of ‘Ice’.

b. An electronic scale.

c. A large number of resealable bags.

d. A roll of aluminium foil.

e. An ‘Ice’ bottle.

Under further arrest and caution, the defendant admitted she intended to sell the ‘Ice’ found inside the flat to others.

In a video-recorded interview, the defendant stated that she was recruited by someone called ‘Ah Man’ to traffic in dangerous drug. She obtained a bag of ‘Ice’ from a rear staircase upon Ah Man’s instructions and separated them into four smaller bags. She intended to further repackage the ‘Ice’ into smaller bags and she would then sell the ‘Ice’. She said she had not yet received the $500 reward. She was a drug addict consuming 0.5 gramme of ‘Ice’ per day.

The retail value of the ‘Ice’ seized is about $338,000.

The defendant admitted she was trafficking the dangerous drug unlawfully at the time.

Background and Mitigation

According to the antecedents statement, the defendant was born in January 1993. She is now 25 years of age. Defendant lived alone prior to her arrest. Her family members include her father whose name was unknown, her mother and a 3-year-old daughter. The defendant claimed to have worked as a clerk, a waitress and in a hairdressing salon before but at the time of the arrest, she was unemployed.

The defendant is not a person of clear record. She has two previous drug-related offences. That is possession of dangerous drug and possession of equipment fit for the intake of dangerous drug in 2013 and she was sentenced to a probation order for 15 months. She was in breach of the probation order about 1 month afterwards and was sent to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

Mr Wong Po-wing, counsel for the defendant, gave me further information about the defendant’s background. Defendant’s father left the family when the defendant was about 5 to 6 years old so the defendant grew up in a single-parent family. The defendant’s old boyfriend also deserted her after their daughter was born. At first, defendant lived with her daughter in a rented flat and was on CSSA now with the amount of $7,000 a month. She found it hard to make ends meet as she has to pay rental of $4,000 per month leaving $3,000 for monthly expenses.

She then decided to get a proper job and the daughter was then looked after by her mother. She worked in a hair salon and her salary had increased from 6,000 to 12,000 per month by the time of her arrest. Mr Wong submitted a number of certificates and letters to show that the defendant was a diligent, hardworking and kind-hearted student when she was still studying. The defendant’s mother is a fervent Christian and people of her mother’s church also said that the defendant was a kind girl who was willing to help others.

The defendant explained in her letter to me that she wanted to make quick money as she felt that her daughter was being discriminated against for having no father around. She expressed that she now know that such thoughts were wrong and she is remorseful. The defendant’s mother also wrote to me asking for leniency. So, did the defendant’s former employer.

Consideration for the Sentence

Offences involving dangerous drugs are serious, particularly, when the trafficking of dangerous drug is involved. A person convicted on indictment of trafficking in the dangerous drug is liable to a fine of $5 million and to life imprisonment.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug. I bear in mind that when sentencing two trafficking offences where different quantities of dangerous drugs were found in the possession of defendant on same day but at different locations, the judge should regard the two offences as representing one location of possession of the total amount of drugs and impose sentence on both offences for that total, making the sentences concurrent with one another. There is an authority for that is HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei.

The quantity of ‘Ice’ involved in this case is 1,035.93 grammes. According to guidelines set in Tam Yi Chun, trafficking between 600 to 1,200 grammes of ‘Ice’, the starting point is between 20 to 23 years. After taking into account the circumstances of this case, the quantity of ‘Ice’ involved and the defendant’s background, I am of the view that a starting point of 22 years is appropriate.

The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity and I would give her the full one-third discount. No doubt the defendant was a decent good girl prior to going astray in 2013 when she was put on probation for possession of dangerous drugs. However, apart from the defendant’s plea, I do not think her background is such that I can give her any further discount.

So, this would be the actual sentence.

Count 1, 14 years and 8 months. Count 2, 14 years and 8 months. Both sentences to run concurrently making a total of 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.