COURT: Yes defendant, please stand.
The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 2.97 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 2.90 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The facts are all too common in Hong Kong, is that on the afternoon of 19 March this year the defendant, a Thai national, came to Hong Kong via the Lok Ma Chau Control Point from China. She was carrying a handbag, a rucksack and a nylon bag. Police, when the possessions of the defendant was searched, inside the nylon bag were found two plastic hose reels and inside these hose reels were found the methamphetamine hydrochloride, which are the subject matter of the charge. She was cautioned and arrested.
Also found on her person was an electronic air ticket to Thailand. The travel movement record reveals that the defendant last came to Hong Kong via the Lok Ma Chau Control Point on 31 January 2014, but left 2 hours later. She next entered Mainland China on 11 March 2014 and according to the driver of the car she was travelling in on the day of her arrest, she had been picked up at about 1 pm on that day.
A hotel booking document found in her possession shows that she had checked into a hotel in Guangzhou on 11 March and checked out on 16 March, so it is not known where she had stayed between 16 March until the day of her arrest on 19 March. And in her Samsung mobile phone was found a message on 15 March from a person called Ben 2 referring to her taking the drugs and it seems to say that if she fled with the drugs, then the person will inform the Thai Government and she will be stopped at the Thai Immigration and Customs.
Also found in her mobile phone were phone calls exchanged between her and someone called Ben 2 and Kam 4. And according to the air ticket found on her, the defendant was supposed to leave Hong Kong for Chiang May International Airport at 4.55 pm on 19 March.
When the defendant was interviewed under caution in a video‑recorded interview, she refused to answer how she was to hand over the hose reels in Thailand to the person called Gam and she refused to answer what her reward would be or who paid her expenses in China. And it is agreed between both parties that the value, the street value of the drugs seized is in the region of HK$1.55 million.
The defendant is aged 41 years and has a clear record in Hong Kong. I am informed by Mr Luk that the defendant lives with her mother and an aunt who are both 76 years’ old, and that she is the sole bread winner and she does not have a drug habit and that she is remorseful. And she committed this offence because she was induced by her African boyfriend.
None of this background material actually assists the defendant. The only, as Mr Luk pointed out, the only mitigating factor in this case is really her early plea and she has saved the court’s time and shows her remorse.
The Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines for sentencing in methamphetamine hydrochloride in the case of the Attorney‑General v Ching Kwok Hung and the tariff that has been recommended is, up to 600 grammes of “ice”, would attract a sentence of 18 years after trial.
I thank Mr Cheng for referring this court to the case of HKSAR v Obi Martina Nzubechukwu which was reported at [2013] Vol 4 HKLRD 9, where the Court of Appeal was dealing with an appeal from an appellant who was carrying a similar amount of “ice”. In that case, it was 2.19 kilogrammes of “ice”.
And the Court of Appeal said that looking at the overall sentence, including the fact that the appellant in that case had come to Hong Kong from Nigeria and was found with the drugs, thus she was importing the drugs into Hong Kong. Taking into account all this, the Court of Appeal decided that a 24 year starting point was a reasonable sentence and this would include the matter of importation into Hong Kong.
Now it is a fact that in this case, the only matter is the importation, how much should I increase the sentencing tariff to, to take that into account, taking into account the fact that these drugs were for onward export to Thailand?
So having considered all the facts of this case, the background of the defendant, I have come to the conclusion therefore that an appropriate starting point will be 23 years, plus 1 year for the International element, and thus bringing the starting point to 24 years.
In view of the defendant’s plea, she is entitled to one‑third discount, thus reducing the sentence to 16 years’ imprisonment. So the defendant goes to prison for 16 years.