A A
HCCC 434/2016
B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 434 OF 2016
D ----------------- D
HKSAR
E v E
F
LI Sai-man F
------------------
G G
Before: DHCJ D Yau
Date: 13 March 2017 at 11.31 am
H Present: Ms Noelle A Chit, PP of the Department of Justice, H
for HKSAR
I Mr Cheung Kam-wing Adonis, instructed by DLA, I
for the accused
Offence: Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
J J
---------------------------------
K K
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
L --------------------------------- L
M COURT: This is my sentence. M
The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate of one
N count of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was committed N
for sentence at the Court of First Instance, pursuant to
O section 81B of the Magistrates Ordinance, Chapter 227. O
Particulars of the charge are that he, on 2 March 2016,
P outside TNT Express Worldwide Hong Kong Limited, at the P
ground floor of Wing Hang Industrial Building, in Kwai
Chung, unlawfully trafficked in a crystalline solid which
Q contained 2,610 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, Q
commonly known as ‘Ice’.
R R
Summary of Facts
S Police officers of the narcotics bureau, conducting an S
operation at Kwai Hei Street in Kwai Chung, intercepted the
defendant and another man outside TNT Express at around
T 5.05 pm on 2 March 2016. The defendant and the man had T
just completed the formalities for a consignment of
humidifiers to be sent to Australia.
U U
CRT12/13.3.2017/TW/cc 1 HCCC 434/2016(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
The defendant put up a struggle with police officers but
was subdued. The defendant was arrested for obstructing
B police officers. He exercised his right of silence under B
caution. Upon search, a receipt for the said consignment
was found in the defendant’s possession. The dispatched
C C
humidifiers were recovered and seized by the police.
D The defendant, together with the other man and the D
humidifiers, were brought back to Tsing Yi Police Station.
An initial check was conducted on the humidifiers and one
E packet of suspected ‘Ice’ was found inside one of the eight E
boxes. Under caution, the defendant claimed that he helped
others to send drugs to Australia for a fee. A more
F F
detailed search was conducted and 24 packets of ‘Ice’ were
found inside 24 individual humidifiers.
G G
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant
admitted that he went to TNT Express to mail the ‘Ice’ to
H Australia. A man nicknamed ‘Ah Wai’ with whom the H
defendant had become acquainted at a pub in early February
2016, asked the defendant if he was willing to mail
I I
dangerous drugs for him for a reward of $40,000. The
defendant agreed, whereupon Ah Wai provided a SIM card and
J a mobile phone to the defendant for contact. J
On the night of 1 March, Ah Wai called the defendant and
K asked for his address. At around 6.15 pm that night, a K
delivery driver handed over an envelope to the defendant.
Inside the envelope was $24,000 cash and a piece of paper
L with the address and contact number to be used in the L
posting. The defendant also received the eight boxes of
M humidifiers with the ‘Ice’ inside. The defendant kept them M
at his home overnight.
N In the morning of 2 March, the defendant asked his friend N
to help him with the boxes. At around 3 pm that day, Ah
Wai contacted the defendant and told him to call a van for
O delivery service and the boxes were loaded into the van O
upon its arrival. The defendant handed over the $24,000 to
P
his friend and told him to use the details of the sender P
and receiver in the envelope to fill in the mailing form.
The boxes were unloaded after arriving at TNT and the
Q defendant’s friend went to deal with the administrative Q
matters. The cost of sending the drugs came up to $23,929.
R The defendant’s friend was released without being charged R
upon legal advice.
S S
The seized drugs were examined and confirmed to contain a
total of 2.61 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
T The estimated street value of the dangerous drugs was T
$860,750.
U U
CRT12/13.3.2017/TW/cc 2 HCCC 434/2016(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Previous convictions
B The defendant has three previous convictions. The first B
one was in February 2013, when he was sentenced to the Drug
Addiction Treatment Centre for the offence of possession of
C C
dangerous drugs. His second conviction was for assault
occasioning actual bodily harm in December 2014, when he
D was again sentenced to the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. D
The defendant’s latest conviction was for trafficking in
dangerous drugs when he was sentenced, on 15 February 2017,
E in the District Court, to 2 years’ imprisonment. E
Mitigation
F F
The defendant is 23; he was 22 at the time of the
G
commission of the offence. He is single and was educated G
up to Form 4 level. He used to work as a cook, earning
$9,000 per month. He had been unemployed since 2014. In
H fact, he was also unemployed prior to the present offence H
and at the time of the commission of the offence.
I I am told that the defendant was a drug addict, but since I
his last admission and then release from the Drug Addiction
Treatment Centre. he is now no longer dependent on drugs.
J J
The defendant lives with his family. His grandfather
K suffers from cancer and needed money for medical treatment. K
The defendant committed the present offence for a monetary
reward. He had confessed to the police in his video-
L recorded interview, he never received the $40,000 promised L
reward.
M Sentencing tariffs M
N
The sentencing tariffs for trafficking in over 600 grammes N
of ‘Ice’ is set out in the case of HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar
Abbas CACC 304/2008. The guideline starting point for
O traffickers, after trial, subject to enhancement, for 1,200 O
to 4,000 grammes of ‘Ice’, is that of 23 to 26 years’
imprisonment.
P P
Enhancement
Q Q
In a case of HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun, CACC 85/2014, the
Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for the enhancement of
R sentence in trafficking cases that involve an international R
element. For drugs below 1,000 grammes, the level of
enhancement for trafficking between 500 to 1,000 grammes of
S dangerous drugs is that of 1 to 2 years. S
Sentence
T T
The defendant committed the offence for a reward. His role
in the trafficking was pivotal, although he was not the
U U
CRT12/13.3.2017/TW/cc 3 HCCC 434/2016(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
mastermind behind the sending of the drugs. A strict
mathematical approach towards the guideline tariff sentence
B would lead to a starting point of 294 months’ imprisonment, B
that is 24.5 years, and this is the starting point I adopt
in the present case.
C C
The defendant was sending the dangerous drugs to Australia
D as accepted by Mr Cheung for the defendant. The D
trafficking did involve an international element. Given
the amount of dangerous drugs involved, I find that an
E appropriate enhancement is that of 24 months’ imprisonment. E
The post-enhancement sentence is therefore 318 months’
imprisonment.
F F
I find that there are no other aggravating features and
G that the only mitigating factor is the defendant’s timely G
guilty plea. For that, he is granted the full one-third
discount.
H H
The defendant’s sentence after plea is therefore 212
months’ imprisonment, or 17 years and 8 months’
I imprisonment. I
Totality
J J
The defendant was sentenced on 15 February 2017 to 2 years’
K imprisonment in the District Court for trafficking in K
dangerous drugs. I have to consider the totality of the
two sentences. The commission of the trafficking offence
L in the District Court case was on 24 September 2014, which L
was about 1½ years before his commission of the present
offence. There are no apparent connections between the
M M
commission of the two offences except for the defendant’s
participation. The dangerous drug involved in the District
N Court case was ketamine. The quantity involved was 6.13 N
grammes.
O Having taken a step back, I find that 12 months of the O
sentence in the District Court case should be served
consecutively to the sentence in the present case, the
P P
balance to be served concurrently.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT12/13.3.2017/TW/cc 4 HCCC 434/2016(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
HCCC 434/2016
B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 434 OF 2016
D ----------------- D
HKSAR
E v E
F
LI Sai-man F
------------------
G G
Before: DHCJ D Yau
Date: 13 March 2017 at 11.31 am
H Present: Ms Noelle A Chit, PP of the Department of Justice, H
for HKSAR
I Mr Cheung Kam-wing Adonis, instructed by DLA, I
for the accused
Offence: Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
J J
---------------------------------
K K
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
L --------------------------------- L
M COURT: This is my sentence. M
The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate of one
N count of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was committed N
for sentence at the Court of First Instance, pursuant to
O section 81B of the Magistrates Ordinance, Chapter 227. O
Particulars of the charge are that he, on 2 March 2016,
P outside TNT Express Worldwide Hong Kong Limited, at the P
ground floor of Wing Hang Industrial Building, in Kwai
Chung, unlawfully trafficked in a crystalline solid which
Q contained 2,610 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, Q
commonly known as ‘Ice’.
R R
Summary of Facts
S Police officers of the narcotics bureau, conducting an S
operation at Kwai Hei Street in Kwai Chung, intercepted the
defendant and another man outside TNT Express at around
T 5.05 pm on 2 March 2016. The defendant and the man had T
just completed the formalities for a consignment of
humidifiers to be sent to Australia.
U U
CRT12/13.3.2017/TW/cc 1 HCCC 434/2016(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
The defendant put up a struggle with police officers but
was subdued. The defendant was arrested for obstructing
B police officers. He exercised his right of silence under B
caution. Upon search, a receipt for the said consignment
was found in the defendant’s possession. The dispatched
C C
humidifiers were recovered and seized by the police.
D The defendant, together with the other man and the D
humidifiers, were brought back to Tsing Yi Police Station.
An initial check was conducted on the humidifiers and one
E packet of suspected ‘Ice’ was found inside one of the eight E
boxes. Under caution, the defendant claimed that he helped
others to send drugs to Australia for a fee. A more
F F
detailed search was conducted and 24 packets of ‘Ice’ were
found inside 24 individual humidifiers.
G G
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant
admitted that he went to TNT Express to mail the ‘Ice’ to
H Australia. A man nicknamed ‘Ah Wai’ with whom the H
defendant had become acquainted at a pub in early February
2016, asked the defendant if he was willing to mail
I I
dangerous drugs for him for a reward of $40,000. The
defendant agreed, whereupon Ah Wai provided a SIM card and
J a mobile phone to the defendant for contact. J
On the night of 1 March, Ah Wai called the defendant and
K asked for his address. At around 6.15 pm that night, a K
delivery driver handed over an envelope to the defendant.
Inside the envelope was $24,000 cash and a piece of paper
L with the address and contact number to be used in the L
posting. The defendant also received the eight boxes of
M humidifiers with the ‘Ice’ inside. The defendant kept them M
at his home overnight.
N In the morning of 2 March, the defendant asked his friend N
to help him with the boxes. At around 3 pm that day, Ah
Wai contacted the defendant and told him to call a van for
O delivery service and the boxes were loaded into the van O
upon its arrival. The defendant handed over the $24,000 to
P
his friend and told him to use the details of the sender P
and receiver in the envelope to fill in the mailing form.
The boxes were unloaded after arriving at TNT and the
Q defendant’s friend went to deal with the administrative Q
matters. The cost of sending the drugs came up to $23,929.
R The defendant’s friend was released without being charged R
upon legal advice.
S S
The seized drugs were examined and confirmed to contain a
total of 2.61 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
T The estimated street value of the dangerous drugs was T
$860,750.
U U
CRT12/13.3.2017/TW/cc 2 HCCC 434/2016(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Previous convictions
B The defendant has three previous convictions. The first B
one was in February 2013, when he was sentenced to the Drug
Addiction Treatment Centre for the offence of possession of
C C
dangerous drugs. His second conviction was for assault
occasioning actual bodily harm in December 2014, when he
D was again sentenced to the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. D
The defendant’s latest conviction was for trafficking in
dangerous drugs when he was sentenced, on 15 February 2017,
E in the District Court, to 2 years’ imprisonment. E
Mitigation
F F
The defendant is 23; he was 22 at the time of the
G
commission of the offence. He is single and was educated G
up to Form 4 level. He used to work as a cook, earning
$9,000 per month. He had been unemployed since 2014. In
H fact, he was also unemployed prior to the present offence H
and at the time of the commission of the offence.
I I am told that the defendant was a drug addict, but since I
his last admission and then release from the Drug Addiction
Treatment Centre. he is now no longer dependent on drugs.
J J
The defendant lives with his family. His grandfather
K suffers from cancer and needed money for medical treatment. K
The defendant committed the present offence for a monetary
reward. He had confessed to the police in his video-
L recorded interview, he never received the $40,000 promised L
reward.
M Sentencing tariffs M
N
The sentencing tariffs for trafficking in over 600 grammes N
of ‘Ice’ is set out in the case of HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar
Abbas CACC 304/2008. The guideline starting point for
O traffickers, after trial, subject to enhancement, for 1,200 O
to 4,000 grammes of ‘Ice’, is that of 23 to 26 years’
imprisonment.
P P
Enhancement
Q Q
In a case of HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun, CACC 85/2014, the
Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for the enhancement of
R sentence in trafficking cases that involve an international R
element. For drugs below 1,000 grammes, the level of
enhancement for trafficking between 500 to 1,000 grammes of
S dangerous drugs is that of 1 to 2 years. S
Sentence
T T
The defendant committed the offence for a reward. His role
in the trafficking was pivotal, although he was not the
U U
CRT12/13.3.2017/TW/cc 3 HCCC 434/2016(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
mastermind behind the sending of the drugs. A strict
mathematical approach towards the guideline tariff sentence
B would lead to a starting point of 294 months’ imprisonment, B
that is 24.5 years, and this is the starting point I adopt
in the present case.
C C
The defendant was sending the dangerous drugs to Australia
D as accepted by Mr Cheung for the defendant. The D
trafficking did involve an international element. Given
the amount of dangerous drugs involved, I find that an
E appropriate enhancement is that of 24 months’ imprisonment. E
The post-enhancement sentence is therefore 318 months’
imprisonment.
F F
I find that there are no other aggravating features and
G that the only mitigating factor is the defendant’s timely G
guilty plea. For that, he is granted the full one-third
discount.
H H
The defendant’s sentence after plea is therefore 212
months’ imprisonment, or 17 years and 8 months’
I imprisonment. I
Totality
J J
The defendant was sentenced on 15 February 2017 to 2 years’
K imprisonment in the District Court for trafficking in K
dangerous drugs. I have to consider the totality of the
two sentences. The commission of the trafficking offence
L in the District Court case was on 24 September 2014, which L
was about 1½ years before his commission of the present
offence. There are no apparent connections between the
M M
commission of the two offences except for the defendant’s
participation. The dangerous drug involved in the District
N Court case was ketamine. The quantity involved was 6.13 N
grammes.
O Having taken a step back, I find that 12 months of the O
sentence in the District Court case should be served
consecutively to the sentence in the present case, the
P P
balance to be served concurrently.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT12/13.3.2017/TW/cc 4 HCCC 434/2016(1)/Sentence
V V