HKSAR v. Lam Hoi Weng

HCCC 222/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 222 OF 2014

-----------------

---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

A male person was seen by police officers who were laying ambush to be opening the door to a flat with a key whilst carrying a brown paper bag. When the police identities were disclosed, that male fled, leaving the keys behind. The defendant was found to be inside the flat. Whilst there were drugs and manufacturing paraphernalia in the flat, the defendant said that he was only responsible for sending the ‘coke’ to others and had nothing to do with the manufacturing.

Upon analysis, the drugs were found to be 1,923.91 grammes of a solid or powder containing 1,725.67 grammes of cocaine, 258 tablets and 4.29 grammes of a solid containing 6.88 grammes of PMMA. The market value of the cocaine is in the region of HK$2.2 million.

The defendant has three previous convictions, one of which was possession of dangerous drugs. His last conviction was in 2011 for using and possessing a false instrument for which he received a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment and with a suspended sentence of 2 months activated, consecutively.

By way of mitigation, I was told that the defendant is now aged 29. Counsel told me that prior to his arrest, he worked on and off as a delivery worker and if he got to work, he earned about $15,000 per month and would contribute six to seven thousand dollars to his family. As for the reason for commission of the present offence, it is said that he owed a large debt and, due to his own foolishness, he committed the present offence.

Counsel stressed that the defendant is remorseful and has pleaded guilty at the earliest possible instance. He promised to make good use of the time whilst in remand to study and to turn over a new leaf after he is discharged.

In sentencing the defendant, I have considered his guilty plea, mitigation forwarded by counsel on his behalf and the existing sentencing tariff and guidelines. I have also perused letters of mitigation submitted.

According to the guideline laid down in the case of Abdallah, trafficking in cocaine weighing between 1,200 to 4,000 grammes, the tariff is one between 23 to 26 years. As for the other drug, PMMA, I am grateful to prosecution counsel for providing me with information that it is a drug related to Ecstasy and its potency is four times that of Ecstasy. I was referred to the case of Cheung Chun Yu, HCCC 550/2013. In that case, Patrick Li J applied the Hii Siew Cheng guideline to that of PMMA.

In the present case, the 6.88 grammes of PMMA falls within the 1 to 10 grammes, that is the 2 to 4 years bracket. The present case involved 1,725.67 grammes of cocaine. Using a conversion to notional quantity of cocaine approach as adopted by Li J, trafficking in 6.88 grammes of PMMA would be comparable to around 2.4 grammes of cocaine. Given the already large quantity of cocaine in this case, I am of the view that the presence of the other drug would not materially affect the starting point.

For all of the drugs, I adopt a starting point of 23½ years’ imprisonment. I shall give him the full one-third discount for his plea. He is sentenced to 15 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.