Defendants, you have both been convicted by the jury after trial of an offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
They have found that both of you, the 1st and 2nd defendants did, on 25 May 2013 at the Hong Kong International Airport at Chek Lap Kok, Lantau in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in 5.91 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 5.62 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise commonly known as “ice”.
On the day in question, 25 May, you had both checked in your suitcases for a flight to New Zealand and were intending to go on a package tour scheduled to take place for 9 days. After checking in your two respective suitcases, you went to the waiting area to board the plane at gate 33. There you were intercepted by Customs officers and brought to a nearby nursing room.
Your suitcases were retrieved and brought into the nursing room. On each of the suitcases bore your names. The Polo Club suitcase bore the 1st defendant’s name and the Diplomat suitcase bore the 2nd defendant’s name. They were locked with a digital combination lock. Each of you individually opened the suitcase using the number to unlock the padlock.
When the suitcases were opened a Customs officer searched the suitcases and in each suitcase were found three packets of the drug “ice”. The drugs were packed in a plastic bag and were all similarly packed and weighed approximately 1 kilogramme each. The drugs were concealed in the underneath of sweaters or jumpers and sewn into the sweaters using a towel as a pouch to which the plastic bag of drugs was placed into.
And from the findings that the jury has made, that you are guilty of this offence, they have found that you both had knowledge that there were drugs in your suitcase at the time you were in the possession of your suitcases. That is, that you both had knowledge of the total of 6 packets of drugs contained in the two suitcases.
Your counsels have mitigated on your behalf before me today and I have taken into account all they have had to say on your behalf. Common to you both in mitigation is that both counsels recognise that for trafficking in dangerous drugs, this is a very serious offence and the sentences are laid down by the tariff case of Ching Kwok Hung. The case of Ching Kwok Hung lays down the tariff sentence that for trafficking of “ice” over 600 grammes, a sentence of 18 years and upwards is appropriate.
Also common to you both is that you have clear records. Turning to your background, 1st defendant, you are 40 years of age. You will be turning 41 in approximately 4 days’ time. You are educated up to Form 5. You are single and both your parents are deceased. I am informed that you are very much alone in this world, particularly as could be seen no friends or relatives came during this trial. You live in China but work in Hong Kong.
Turning to you, the 2nd defendant, you are 38 years of age, married and live with your husband in Hong Kong. You were a housewife at the time of your arrest and prior to that, you worked as a clerk. Your mother is retired and is around 60 years of age. Your elder brother is 42 years of age, and is also a clerk.
I have had submitted to me by Mr Sadhwani, your counsel, good character references. There were five in total and I have had regard to the contents that have been written in there.
Both counsel recognise that for this offence of trafficking and for the quantity, that is the amount involved, you realise that you will be sentenced to a long sentence of imprisonment.
No doubt you know that drug trafficking is a serious offence which causes grave social harm and the courts have said that this type of offence calls for deterrent sentences. The starting point of a sentence is determined mainly by reference to the quantity of the drug in question. There may be other aggravating factors and in this case, the other aggravating factor is the international element involved, as you were intending to export this very large quantity of drugs out of Hong Kong to New Zealand.
As a result of aggravating factors, the starting point would call for an enhancement. There has been a recent case by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun CACC 524/2011. In that case, the judgment was handed down on 9 June 2014 and that case provided new sentence guidelines for “ice”. Those guidelines however, do not apply in this present case.
In that case, the court was reflecting on sentencing judges who were using guidelines applied in the case of Abdallah for very large quantities of “ice”. The court there held, in paragraph 42, that it was an error of principle to apply Abdallah guidelines for “ice”. As for the very large quantities of “ice” a slightly lower tariff was applicable than that in Abdallah.
The court reflected that in Ching Kwok Hung it provided a tariff of 18 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in 600 grammes of “ice” whereas in Lau Tak Ming it provided a tariff of 20 years for trafficking in 600 grammes of heroin. In that case of Tam Yi Chun the Court of Appeal looked at Lee Kwok Wai as a comparative with the quantity of “ice” involved.
In Lee Kwok Wai CACC 87/2009, for 1,896.70 grammes, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a starting point of 22½ years’ imprisonment was appropriate. It also confirmed that 2 years enhancement for the international element was correct and imposed a total sentence of 24½ years for 1,896.70 grammes of “ice”.
Defendants, in this case you had an extremely large quantity of “ice”, more than double that in Lee Kwok Wai. You had 5,620 grammes of “ice” an extremely large amount in any terms. The value of “ice” which was agreed at trial was estimated to be some HK$4.5 million.
Taking into account the quantity of “ice” I take a starting point of 24 years’ imprisonment. Given that you were exporting these drugs to New Zealand, there is an international element involved and that calls for an enhancement of your sentence, as that is an aggravating factor, and for that I add a further 2 years’ imprisonment.
Defendants, for the offence to which you have been found guilty, you are sentenced to 26 years’ imprisonment, both for the 1st and 2nd defendant.