The Particulars of Offence provide that on 18 December 2014, at the Customs Arrival Hall, Lok Ma Chau Control Point, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 418 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 413 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides that at around 3:54 am on 18 December 2014, Customs officers intercepted the defendant as he walked past the ‘Nothing to Declare Channel’ at the Customs Arrival Hall, Lok Ma Chau Control Point.
Upon a body search of the defendant, a resealable transparent plastic bag of dangerous drug (“E1”) concealed in five more layers of packaging, namely another resealable transparent plastic bag, a layer of tissue paper, a layer of foam and two layers of aluminium foil, was found inside the front top-edge of his trousers. The defendant was arrested.
At the time of arrest, he was in possession of HK$62.20 and a mobile phone.
Upon forensic examination, it was confirmed that E1 was 418 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 413 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The estimated street value of E1 was HK$182,666.
In the Summary of Facts, the defendant accepts and admits that at all material times, he imported E1 into Hong Kong from Mainland China for the purpose of trafficking.
By way of personal background, the defendant is 35 years of age. He was born in January 1980. At the time of his arrest he was unemployed. He is single. He has attained education up to lower secondary level.
The defendant has a total of three previous criminal convictions, none of which was related to dangerous drugs.
By way of mitigation, Mr Andrew Leung submitted on behalf of the defendant that he had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity at the Magistrates’ Court, which shows his remorse. I am told that the defendant was recruited to take part in the drug trade by a man called “Ah Cheuk”, whom the defendant became acquainted when he was serving his sentence in prison.
The defendant was promised $11,000 for taking the drugs in question from Shenzhen to Hong Kong. As the defendant was unemployed at the time, he foolishly agreed to take part in the offence.
A mitigation letter by the defendant was handed up to the court wherein the defendant stated deep remorse for having committed the offence. However, I should point out that as has been previously stated many times in these courts, personal circumstances of a defendant is little mitigation in a serious case of drug trafficking.
The defendant has been convicted on one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 418 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 413 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as the ‘Ice’ drug.
The offence was committed on 18 December 2014, well after the Court of Appeal had handed down its Judgment in the case of HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, which sets out the revised tariffs for trafficking in the ‘Ice’ drug.
In the Tam Yi Chun case, for trafficking in between 300 grammes and 600 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the proper sentence to be imposed after trial was held to be 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment.
In my view, following the guidelines in theTam Yi Chun case, and based on the quantity of the narcotic involved, the proper initial starting point for sentence should be 16 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
The initial starting point should be enhanced for the international element in the present case.
In HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun [2014] 6 HKC 106, the Court of Appeal suggested that, as a broad guideline, the level of enhancement for quantities of the ‘Ice’ drug between 250 grammes and 500 grammes should be six months to one year.
In my judgment, applying the guidelines suggested in Chung Ping Kun, the appropriate enhancement of sentence in the present case is 9 months’ imprisonment.
Accordingly, the enhanced starting point for sentence is 17 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.
I shall give the defendant the full one-third discount for his guilty plea, which was tendered at the first opportunity at the Magistrates’ Court.
The defendant is accordingly sentenced to 11 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.