HKSAR v. Lau Ka Shing and Another

HCCC 174/2016

[2018] HKCFI 2876

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 174 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

Lau Ka-shing, Lau Ka-chun, I am not going to preach a long sermon to you. You are and certainly were both drug users, and you are both petty criminals, Lau Ka-shing perhaps more so than Lau Ka-chun. You both knew the risks you were running in trafficking in this very large quantity of “Ice”, and you both must have known that if caught, you would face very long prison sentences.

I accept that you were both mules, the lowest rank in the chain of command. But without mules such as you, this filthy trade cannot function, and the law recognises no distinction between those who control the trade and those who carry out their orders. And I see nothing to distinguish between your cases; you were both as equally culpable.

You, Lau Ka-chun, have mitigation. You pleaded guilty and you will receive the appropriate recognition for it. In fact, you are an exceptionally lucky man because your trial date was fixed on 18 May 2016 and that pre‑dated the change in sentencing as policy for those who plead guilty which the Court of Appeal published on 2 September 2016, and you will receive a full one-third reduction in the sentence you would have received had you not pleaded guilty.

Apart from your guilty plea, you have no other mitigation, Lau Ka-chun. Your offer to provide information to the police and co-operate in bringing others to trial remains just that, an offer which has not been carried out, and I can give you no reduction of your sentence because of it. Should in the future you actually do provide information which brings others to justice, you can then petition the Chief Executive for a remission of sentence.

You, Lau Ka-shing, as was your right, chose to defend the case. It is obvious from their verdicts that the jury disbelieved your story that the police had manufactured a case against you, and you have no mitigation at all.

I know that you have been advised by your counsel that there are clear guidelines set out for all judges to follow when we sentence those who traffic in large quantities of dangerous drugs. You have been told that judges are expected to follow those guidelines unless there are exceptional reasons not to do so, and there are no exceptional reasons in either of your cases.

The amount of “Ice” involved in the two charges is very large, just under 3 kilograms of the stuff. I am treating your two offences as one continuing course of criminal conduct, and I am basing my sentences on both counts on the total quantity of “Ice” involved in the whole case, relying at the amount particularised in each count.

I am not increasing your sentences to take account of the fact that you both have criminal records. And although I have no idea where this large quantity of “Ice” was to finally be traded on, there is evidence that it was to be exported out of Hong Kong, and I stress evidence.

So following the guidelines I have spoken of, the appropriate sentence for each of you on both counts is one of 25 years’ imprisonment, and that, Lau Ka-shing, is the sentence you will receive on both the 1st and 2nd counts as you have no mitigation. Your sentences are to be served concurrently at the same time, meaning that you will be imprisoned for a total period of 25 years.

Your sentence on both counts, Lau Ka-chun, is reduced by 8 years and 4 months to reflect your guilty pleas, and that means that your sentence on each count is one of 16 years and 8 months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently which means at the same time. You can sit down.