HKSAR v. Lee Ming Ho

HCCC 367/2016

[2019] HKCFI 1150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 367 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

Lee Ming-ho, you have been found guilty after trial of trafficking in 34.232 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’. That offence took place on 26 February of 2016, over three years ago. Your co-defendants were dealt with by Deputy High Court Judge Chan on 10 October 2017 and were sentenced to 33 years’ imprisonment for the parts they played in this matter. You, of course, were not there because you had absconded in the middle of the trial just as the 1st defendant started to give evidence against you.

You now fall to be sentenced for the trafficking of dangerous drugs and for failing to surrender to custody, which you failed to do on 26 November of 2017 during the first trial.

The facts are very simple. You were the client of a man referred to as Hung Goh. You approached him to arrange transportation for the ‘Ice’, which was to come by boat from the mainland. Chu Ho-wah and Li Chin-pang were the men whom Hung Goh approached to pick up the goods and to deliver them to a location provided by you.

There were five of you involved that night. Hung Goh, Chu and Li and then you and Fung King-fung. All five of you met up at a restaurant in Ap Lei Chau. You were introduced to Chu and Li by Hung Goh who instructed both Chu and Li to follow your orders, and that is what they did. They followed you, you say you were driving, to Repulse Bay. You took them to Seaview Promenade and to the pier next to it. You initially parked up beside the entrance to the pavilion area but you decided that was too noticeable and so you told Chu and Li to move their LGV further away. But you were all observed getting out of your cars when you first pulled up near the pavilion and Chu and Li were observed to drive away and then return on foot.

You were observed to be talking to each other and talking on the telephone whilst you waited for the ‘Ice’ to be delivered. It was you, chasing the boat to see when it would arrive, and it was you who told Chu and Li that the boat was about to arrive and what to do when it did arrive. But you made sure you were not in the vicinity when that happened.

You and Fung drove away to a 7-Eleven store around the corner on Beach Road. From there you could, apparently innocently, watch what was happening to Chu and Li and watch them taking the risk of picking up the 34 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’ from the boat. Having done that, they met up with you at the 7-Eleven and both vehicles were going to travel together to Yau Ma Tei. But then you were informed that there might be a road block and so it was you who told Chu and Li to park up whilst you checked out the area, which you were seen to do. Once you had done so, Chu and Li moved off to a lay-by in South Bay Road to await further instructions from you. Then they pulled away and met you at an adjacent roundabout and they followed you to Waterloo Road where you were intercepted.

I have no doubt that these 34 kilogrammes of dangerous drugs were yours and not Hung Goh’s. That was over HK$10 million worth of drugs. You are clearly not an innocent dupe nor a foolish young man thinking he could make easy money in delivering drugs. You were much higher ranking and their 33-year sentence must be put at your door because it is clear you were content to have them take the risk in the hope that you would successfully distance yourself from the actual drugs. That might have worked if Chu had not started to point the finger at you in the first trial and if Chu and Li had not decided to finally tell the truth in order to mitigate their very substantial sentence. And who would blame them for that? You were happy for them, after all, to take all of the risk.

That is not the only person you put at risk. Somehow you have persuaded Fung King-fung to come to court and to perjure himself on your behalf. His evidence was so poor that the jury returned with a unanimous verdict after deliberating for a very short period of time. His evidence did not even match your equally weak and vague defence, and that is not a criticism of Mr Donald. I am asking the prosecution to seek an investigation of his evidence with a view to charging him with perjury. I think it is high time people realized they cannot come to court and lie with impunity on oath.

Mr Donald has told me today that you are 41 years of age and you are married with two children. The sentence I am about to pass will mean that you will be in your sixties when you are finally released if you behave in prison. You are not a man of good character but they are insignificant offences compared to what you have been convicted of and I have not taken them into account in sentence.

As Mr Donald has said, the sentencing guidelines for large amounts of drugs such as ‘Ice’ are found in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437. The range of sentencing for up to 15 kilogrammes of dangerous drugs is 30 years, and after that, it is at the discretion of the court. It would be unfair to Mr Chu and Mr Li if I adopted a starting point other than the one adopted in the previous trial which would have been equally applicable to you if you had not absconded. That is one of 33 years. However, this court has clear knowledge and evidence of the fact that these goods were imported from Xiaomeisha, which is a coastal resort in mainland China. And as such, I am going to enhance that 33-year starting point by 2 years to 35 years for the international element to this crime in accordance with HKSAR v Abdallah.

I do not think that is the least unjust especially as it is clear that neither Chu nor Li actually knew where the drugs were coming from when they agreed to take part. You were also not simply a courier. You were someone of some power and influence or at least someone for those in power who felt that they could rely upon to look after $10 million worth of drugs.

Looking at totality of sentence, I nevertheless intend to enhance your sentence by a further 2 years because of what I believe was the significant position you held in importing a large quantity of dangerous drugs into Hong Kong. If I did not do so, those actually responsible for the ill fortune of their couriers serving large sentences would receive no more severe punishment than those foolish enough to do their bidding but who are not the ones who profit from this evil crime. That makes 37 years on Count 1.

Lee Ming-ho, you ran as soon as things did not look good for you during the first trial. Failing to surrender to custody is an offence for which you must be punished. The starting point for sentence is one of 6 months’ imprisonment but you indicated a plea of guilty at the first opportunity even though it was not entered until the first day of trial and you are entitled to receive a one-third discount on that sentence, making a sentence of imprisonment of 4 months for Count 2. That is a wholly distinct and separate offence and others must not think that they can abscond and avoid quite distinct punishment for so doing.

The Court of Appeal has determined sentences for trafficking in dangerous drugs in large amounts will be punitive. It cannot follow therefore that any other sentence must necessarily fall to be consumed within the larger sentence simply because the sentence you receive is a deterrent one.

I have considered the issue of totality and given that the sentence on Count 2 is a short one, as a matter of principle, I feel that you should serve it separately to the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs until such time as the Court of Appeal indicates otherwise. You will go to prison for 37 years and 4 months.