HKSAR v. Chen Wei You and Another

HCCC 220/2019

[2020] HKCFI 148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 220 OF 2019

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: D1 and D2 are two Taiwanese young men aged 23 and 21 respectively. On 15 October 2018, D1 and D2 imported a large quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride into Hong Kong. They were arrested and charged subsequently.

Charge 1 against D1 concerned 1,982 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1,957 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Charge 2 against D2 concerned 1,981 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1,961 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

D1 and D2 pleaded guilty to their respective charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug in the court below and admitted the Summary of Facts.

On 15 October 2018, D1 and D2 arrived in Hong Kong from Phnom Penh, Cambodia together on a Cathay Dragon flight. At about 3.45 pm on the same day, they were intercepted by customs officers when they passed though the customs arrival hall together.

Upon searches on D1, four plastic bags were found wrapped around his abdomen, back and thighs by bandages and duct tape underneath his clothes. D1 was found to be carrying four plastic bags containing a total of 1,982 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1,957 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, estimated value: $1,117,848.

On D2, four plastic bags were found wrapped around his abdomen, back and thighs by bandages and duct tape underneath his clothes. D2 was found to be carrying four plastic bags containing a total of 1,981 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1,961 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride with an estimated value of $1,117,284.

Both D1 and D2 were arrested. Under caution at scene, at first D1 claimed that he did not know what the substance found was. He said someone whom he did not know had asked him to carry the substance, and there was a reward of NT$100,000 which he had not yet received. Subsequently, during a preliminary enquiry conducted later on the same day, D1 accepted that the substance found on him was drug, and he had received the drug in Phnom Penh. He said he had no idea what he needed to do with the drug. He came to Hong Kong together with D2.

D2 stated under caution that the substance found was amphetamine. He said someone whom he did not know had asked him to carry the drug, and there would be a reward of NT$50,000. He claimed that he came to Hong Kong alone. He said he did not know where he had received the drug. He had no idea what he needed to do with the drug.

At the time of their arrest, D1 had cash of HK$300, NT$10,201 and a small amount of Cambodian riel, US dollars and euro. He had one mobile phone and seven SIM cards.

A mobile phone together with a SIM card were found in D2’s possession.

D1 and D2 were found to be in possession of each other’s travel insurance document.

D2(D1?) said the following in a subsequent video-recorded interview:

(a) He had a debt of NT$1.6 million. A person with the surname “Xu” offered him a job which required him to go overseas for five to seven days. This job came with a reward of NT$100,000. He knew that the job was dangerous and might involve something illegal.

(b) On 3 October 2018, Xu called D1 up and told him that the trip would start in two-day time. D1 sent Xu a photo of his passport. Xu arranged the flight tickets for him. He also gave D1 €500 for accommodation expenses.

(c) D1 went to the airport on 5 October 2018 together with D2. They were not known to each other prior to this trip. They left Taiwan and travelled to Madrid, Spain via Hong Kong. They stayed in Spain until 13 October 2018 when they departed for Phnom Penh. They arrived at Phnom Penh the next day. They met up with Xu there.

(d) On 15 October 2018, both defendants paid Xu a visit at the latter’s hotel room. There was another unknown male inside the room. Once they got inside, Xu started wrapping the seized drug onto D2 while the unknown male wrapped the same onto D1. Upon being asked by D1, Xu told them that they were wrapping drug onto them. The defendants then headed to the airport for a flight to Hong Kong. Xu instructed them to walk separately throughout the trip. Apart from being instructed to call upon his arrival, D1 did not know anything about what he needed to do with the drug in Hong Kong.

(e) D1 accepted that he was in possession of D2’s travel insurance document.

D2 said the following in his subsequent video-recorded interview:

(a) D2 claimed that he was in debt. He came to know of a Taiwanese male whom he called “Boss”. Boss offered him a job which required him to go abroad. This job came with a reward of NT$50,000 upon the completion of the trip. He accepted the offer because he needed the money.

(b) Boss took D2’s identity card to apply for a passport on his behalf. Boss also arranged flight tickets for him. Boss told D2 that he would be flown to Cambodia and Hong Kong for leisure. Though he had his suspicion D2 did not ask Boss more about the nature of the trip.

(c) Boss gave D2 cash of €300 to €400 and HK$2,000 as travel expenses. He also gave D2 a mobile phone and a SIM card.

(d) On 5 October 2018, Boss passed onto D2 his flight tickets. Boss drove him to the airport. He was met by D1 there and they travelled together to Spain and Cambodia.

(e) D1 and D2 did meet Boss and Boss’ brother again at a hotel in Cambodia. Inside a hotel room, Boss wrapped the drug seized onto D2’s body while Boss’ brother did the same to D1. D2 claimed that at the time he had no idea what the substance wrapped onto him was.

(f) D1 and D2 then went to the airport together for a flight to Hong Kong. D2 claimed not to know anything about what he needed to do with the drug upon his arrival in Hong Kong.

(g) D2 accepted that he was in possession of D1’s travel insurance document.

Examination of the mobile phones of D1 and D2 uncovered that they had used their respective mobile phones to get in touch with Boss and other relevant persons. The examination shows that D1 and D2 used their mobile phones to update their trip details with those instructing them and contacted each other throughout.

Airline records showed that D1 and D2 travelled from Taipei to Madrid via Hong Kong on 5 October 2018 on the same flights. For the journey to Hong Kong from Phnom Penh on 15 October 2018 they travelled on the same booking and on the same flight. They also cleared immigration nearly at the same time.

The antecedent statement of D1 states that he was born in Taiwan on 18 July 1996, he is now 23. He had received education up to secondary school level in Taiwan. He worked in a steel structure industry, earning about NT$30,000 to NT$40,000. Ms Lee told me in mitigation that the 1st defendant was living in Taiwan with his parents and his younger sister. D1 has one twin brother but he is living apart.

The antecedent statement of D2 states that D2 was born in Taiwan on 28 July 1998, he is now 21. He had received education up to secondary school level in Taiwan. He was working as a part-time worker with unstable income in Taiwan before his arrest. His father is aged 80 and his mother aged 60. D2 has one younger sister who is aged 15. D2 lived with his parents and his younger sister in Taiwan before his arrest.

Ms Lee for D1 placed before me eight mitigating letters written by D1, his mother, his elder sister and his aunt, and also a letter by his cousin. Ms Lee told me in mitigation that D1 committed the offence for economic reasons. He is extremely remorseful for his wrongdoing. He promises not to reoffend again. Ms Lee asked for a lenient sentence on behalf of D1.

Mr Chang for D2 told me D2 committed Charge 2 for economic reason. He was under financial pressure at the time. Due to financial pressure and greed, D2 succumbed to the temptation of making quick money when he was offered a job of a courier of dangerous drug for NT$50,000 which he had not received.

In sentencing D1 and D2, I have borne in mind the quantities of the drugs involved, the facts of the case, the background information of the defendant placed before me and of course the facts of the case.

Charge 1 against D1 concerned 1,957 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Charge 2 against D2 concerned 1,961 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Applying the tariff as set down in Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437, for trafficking in the amount of 1,200 to 4,000 grammes, a starting point of 23 to 26 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. Given the quantities of the ‘Ice’ involved in Charge 1 and Charge 2, in my judgement, a starting point of 23 years and 9 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for Charge 1 and Charge 2.

D1 and D2 imported large quantities of ‘Ice’ to Hong Kong from Cambodia. Given the international element involved in this case, an enhancement of 27 months is appropriate for Charge 1 and Charge 2. For the reasons given, the ultimate starting point I adopt after enhancement is 26 years for Charge 1 and Charge 2.

D1 and D2 is each entitled to one-third reduction for their guilty pleas, clear record and remorse. That would bring their sentences down to 17 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. The fact that the defendants were under financial pressure and they committed their respective offences for economic reasons do not count as mitigating factors.

D1 and D2 were young men. At the time of the offences, D1 was aged 22 and D2 aged 20 but they were not people of extreme youth, and thus no extra reduction can be afforded to D1 and D2 for their youth. I have considered the mitigating letters placed before me by D1’s counsel. The matters raised by D1 and his family members, whether considered individually or collectively, do not count as mitigating factors.

For the reasons given, on Charge 1, I sentence D1 to 17 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. On Charge 2, I sentence D2 to 17 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.