COURT: At about 9.50 pm on 28 November last year, the defendant was intercepted by Customs officers at the Customs Arrival Hall, Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point on arrival from the mainland and searched. The dangerous drugs which are the subject matter of this trial were found strapped to his right and left calves and to his abdomen. When asked what the items were, the defendant said they were "Ice".
The drugs were seized and found to contain 871.38 grammes containing 841.35 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 0.77 of a gramme of a solid containing 0.72 of a gramme of cocaine and 0.58 of a gramme of a mixture containing 0.46 of a gramme of heroin hydrochloride.
The estimated market retail value of the drugs seized at the time was HK$625,330.
The defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court on 5 July this year, as a result of which he was committed to this court for sentence. He is 57 years of age and has a long history of offending, including five appearances for possession of dangerous drugs. However, he has not been to prison before for trafficking in a dangerous drug.
When he was arrested and cautioned for the present offence, he asserted that he was delivering the drugs for a $5,000 reward. I am told he was unemployed at the time as well as suffering from severe diabetes which has affected his vision.
Clearly, the two main factors which will determine the starting point for sentence are the quantity of drugs in question and the fact that there is an international element in his bringing the drugs across the border into Hong Kong.
So far as mitigation is concerned, the main factor in his favour is the plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity. I also bear in mind the defendant’s age and health. On that latter matter, it has been urged upon me that I obtain a medical report on his current health condition. However, the reality is that even if I proceed on the assumption that he suffers from bad diabetes with poor eyesight as a result, it is not going to have any significant effect on the sentence for what are extremely serious offences. Moreover, these are not conditions that have suddenly emerged since he was taken into custody.
I am quite confident that whatever his ailments, they will be properly addressed during the course of any prison term that I may pass. I am not minded, therefore, to obtain a medical report although I will proceed on the basis of what I have heard, fully taking his poor health into account. I have just said that these factors will not have any significant effect on his sentence. Whether it has any effect at all, I will come to in due course.
Mr Wong, for the defendant, has presented a very helpful mitigation on his client’s behalf and taken me to a number of relevant cases.
I should say that I intend to ignore the insignificant amounts of cocaine and heroin which were found in conjunction with the methamphetamine hydrochloride. In reality, they make absolutely no difference to the sentence for the principal component of the drugs which, for sentencing purposes, is 841.35 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride narcotic.
As for the authorities to which Mr Wong has taken me, the one which is perhaps of most assistance given the quantity and circumstances involved is HKSAR v Lai Yung Ngai & Another, CACC 335/2008, where, in respect of 980.1 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride narcotic seized from the body of one of the applicants, to whom the drugs had been strapped, as he was leaving for Australia by aeroplane, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a starting point of 21 years’ imprisonment which had resulted in an ultimate sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.
Mr Wong points out that the international element in this particular case was not merely the fact that the two men were taking the drugs to Australia, but that they had joined a tour group which had placed the leader and other members of that group in an obviously compromising and dangerous position. I note that the drugs in that case were almost 140 grammes more than the quantity of drugs with which I am dealing.
Miss Chan, for the prosecution, has also helpfully brought to my attention a table of sentences involving quantities above the cut-off quantity of 600 grammes in this particular drug.
Looking at the facts of this case and the authorities to which I have been referred, I consider a starting point, for the quantity alone, of 19 years’ imprisonment to be appropriate. To that starting point I must add 1 year for the international element involved in bringing a substantial quantity of drugs across the border into Hong Kong. The overall starting point will therefore be one of 20 years’ imprisonment. From that starting point, I will give the defendant a full one-third discount for his early plea, which brings the sentence down to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
I return to the question of his age and health. I am prepared, more as an exercise of mercy, to make a very slight reduction of 4 months’ imprisonment in the light of the fact that the defendant is now 57 years of age and clearly suffers from poor health. I am persuaded to exercise leniency in this regard solely because the defendant pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, namely, in the Magistrates Court, rather than on the first day of trial at the High Court.
Defendants who play fair with the system and recognise what they have done at the earliest possible opportunity, thus saving everybody, in particular the prosecution, the time and expense of putting together papers for a High Court trial are entitled, in my view, to particular consideration where there are peculiar matters of mitigation which justify a further slight adjustment of their sentence.
Accordingly, defendant, you will go to prison for 13 years.