On that day, at about 10.15 pm, you were intercepted by customs officers at the customs departure hall clearance at the Hong Kong Macau Ferry Terminal. You were taken to a room at the departure hall and searched. Upon search, inside the right and left pockets of your jacket wrapped around your waist were the drugs as referred to in the charge in four different bags. Three of the bags contained cocaine; one of them contained ‘Ice’. You also had in your possession $20,000-odd cash and two mobile phones.
You were arrested and cautioned and stated, amongst other things, that you knew the crystalline substance contained in your pocket was ‘Ice’, the drug ‘Ice’, and that the other white solid was ‘coke’ or ‘crack’. You informed the customs that the drugs did not belong to you but that you were helping a male bring the drugs. A male had called you and asked you to pick up the drugs at the entrance of 7‑Eleven at Shun Tak Centre. That male had asked you to put the drugs in the female toilet at the Macau Outer Harbour Ferry Terminal. You were to receive $5,000 as a reward and you did not have the contact method of that male.
A video-recorded interview was conducted the following day whereby you admitted and confirmed what you had said at the scene.
The estimated retail value of the drugs seized was $164,229.20.
Through your plea of guilty you have, of course, admitted that you possessed these drugs for the purposes of trafficking. Clearly, you were going to take these drugs from Hong Kong to Macau, which is exporting dangerous drugs.
Mr Lau, your counsel, has submitted written submissions to me and has also further submitted to me this morning. I have also received letters from yourself and your son who is now 16 years of age. You are born in Hong Kong and are 39 years of age. You have received Form 6 or Grade 12 secondary-level education. You are a person of clear record, meaning that you have never committed an offence before.
I am informed that previously you worked as a restaurant manager and was earning $22,000-odd. However, that restaurant closed and you soon were unemployed. As said in your letter, as you were required to support your son and your parents. You then found other ways to earn money and this was one of the ways whereby you earned quick money in assisting somebody to courier these drugs to Macau.
You were married but divorced some 10 years ago. You were thereafter a single mother, so in my calculation it would be approximately when your son was about six years old, and since then you have had to support your family.
Your letter to me is clear that you are very regretful for your foolishness in attempting to take these drugs to Macau but you were desperate in that you had lost your job and wanted to find ways to make money to support your family and you are deeply remorseful.
In regard to your son, his letter is very touching in that he realised that you have committed a crime but of course, as a loving and filial son, informs me what an amazing person you are. Now that he is living with his grandparents, particularly his grandfather who now has to take over the burden of assisting with the support of the family.
I am sure that you have been informed by your counsel that drug trafficking in Hong Kong is an extremely serious offence. There are guidelines to which the Court of Appeal, the higher courts, set down for trafficking in certain amounts of drugs.
Now, the reason why these guidelines are so severe is because trafficking in drugs not only destroys the person who is taking the drugs but destroys other people in relation to that person. You can see you have destroyed your family by being in prison, but had these drugs got to Macau, they would have been distributed to drug dependants and those drug dependants would have been hugely affected by taking these drugs and their families would be hugely affected by these drugs. So you are in fact destroying hundreds of people, maybe more than that because you would have assisted in taking these drugs to Macau. That is one of the principal reasons why traffickers are sentenced so heavily in Hong Kong because of the impact that it has on people taking drugs and their families.
Now, as Mr Lau has correctly referred to the sentencing options I have, I shall take the combined approach as there were two different types of drugs involved in this case. They were ‘Ice’ and cocaine, very serious drugs indeed.
The sentencing guideline for trafficking in ‘Ice’ is the case of Tam Yi Chun and the sentencing guideline for cocaine is that of Attorney General v Rojas which says that the same guidelines are that of heroin which is that of Lau Tak Ming. I shall not state the citations as they are very well‑known.
In sentencing you, I shall take the combined approach and the conversion test. You were trafficking in 92.7 grammes of cocaine which had you been convicted after trial, the appropriate sentence would have been 9 years’ imprisonment. That would equate, if cocaine is converted to ‘Ice’, to approximately 40 grammes of ‘Ice’. I consider ‘Ice’ to be the more severe or serious drugs, therefore I shall convert the cocaine to ‘Ice’ and sentence you as if all the drugs were ‘Ice’.
The total amount of ‘Ice’ would be 40 grammes, which is a conversion from cocaine, and the 91.3 grammes of ‘Ice’ that you were trafficking in. That would make a total of 131.3 grammes of ‘Ice’.
For trafficking in 131.3 grammes of ‘Ice’, the starting point after trial, had you been convicted, I would have taken would be 12 years’ imprisonment. This is the starting point and clearly there is an aggravating factor in this case. That aggravating factor was that you were exporting or attempting, going to take these drugs out of Hong Kong to Macau, and that is usually referred to as an international element which calls for an enhancement of the starting point. For enhancements for international elements of less than 1,000 grammes, it is, as Mr Lau and Ms Hui, the prosecutor, has referred to, the case of Chung Ping Kun. And in taking that amount of drugs, I enhance the starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment by 3 months.
Defendant, had you been convicted after trial, I would have taken a starting point of 12 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. The strongest and greatest mitigating factor in your case and only mitigating factor is your early plea of guilty ‑‑ earliest and first opportunity to plead guilty at the Magistrates’ Court. There are no other mitigating factors. The fact that you have a clear record is not considered a mitigating factor.
In those circumstances, defendant, giving you the one-third discount, you shall be sentenced to a term of 8 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.