The drugs, according to Detective Senior Inspector Lewis, would bring in a street value of over HK$1.7 million.
As has been correctly pointed out in the case of R v Cheung Wai Kwong reported at 1997, Vol. 3 HKC 496, the Court of Appeal has already said that manufacturing is a more serious offence than trafficking and in headnote 2 of that case the Court of Appeal makes these observations: “A person involved in the manufacturing process was clearly nearer to the source of evil than a trafficker. He deserved a heavier sentence.”
In deciding the proper sentence for the offence of manufacturing of dangerous drugs the quantity of drugs was but one factor to be taken into consideration. Other factors included the scale of the operation, the capacity of the equipment, whether the manufacturing station had been producing or was likely to produce substantial quantities of dangerous drugs and the role played by the accused.
Here there was a large quantity of kerosene found and there was the various acids, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid and the operation was to purify and extract the cocaine from the plastic dolls which had been sent from Bolivia.
I would not call it a small operation because as described by Dr Ng, you do not need very sophisticated equipment to do what the defendants were doing, to extract and purify the cocaine from the dolls.
There were large buckets present in the flat, there were large pots and all the paraphernalia which were suitable for the process of purifying and extracting. There is no doubt that the defendants could have continued processing more dolls with this equipment.
In an offence of this nature the background of the defendants are of insignificance. Hong Kong is facing a dramatic increase in drug offences and this can be evidenced, in fact, by looking at my list today. I had a pre-trial review of trafficking in dangerous drugs, I had a sentencing this morning prior to this one of trafficking in dangerous drugs from Paraguay and now I am dealing with also trafficking in dangerous drugs with an international element, this time the dolls were sent from Bolivia.
Our Narcotics Bureau and our Customs officers had put up a very valiant fight against this evil and the courts have to look very seriously and severely at people who for whatever reason come here to manufacture dangerous drugs or to traffick in them.
The 1st and 2nd defendants, I see here, have actually no mitigating factors that I can consider. The 1st defendant has been living here for quite a long time and he knows full well the sort of sentences meted out for these type of offences.
The 2nd defendant, though a foreigner, that is not mitigation. He was brought here on his own admission, which was accepted by the jury, as a chemist and imported to do his work here. I see no difference in the sentences that they should serve.
The sentences, I agree, should be a concurrent ones. In relation to the 1st count of manufacturing of a dangerous drug I would impose a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment.
For the 2nd count of trafficking in a dangerous drug I agree with counsel’s observation that it falls within the range set down in the case of Abdallah, which is submitted by Mr Kwan, that for trafficking in between 1,200 to 4,000 grammes a sentence of 23 to 26 years’ imprisonment is recommended.
I will take 23 years’ imprisonment but I will add 1 year for the international element. On the 2nd count of trafficking in a dangerous drug the defendants will each go to prison for 24 years.
Both sentences, that is sentence of 25 years in Count 1 and sentence of 24 years in Count 2 will be served concurrently.