HKSAR v. Wong Hei Chit

HCCC 298/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 298 OF 2014

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: Stand up please, defendant.

The defendant was convicted after trial by a jury of two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

On 27 February 2014, the defendant was stopped and arrested by Customs & Excise officers at around 7 pm on Cheung Wing Road, Tsuen Wan. He was then driving a light goods vehicle. A bag containing nine purported iPhone boxes was found placing on the front passenger seat of his vehicle. Upon opening the iPhone boxes it was found inside each box a transparent plastic bag containing 0.24 kilogramme of ketamine mixture. The total quantity of the nine packets is 2.16 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 1.66 kilogrammes of ketamine. The street value of the ketamine amounts to HK$250,560. This is the first count.

Some 10 or 15 minutes before his arrest, at around 6.50 pm, the defendant delivered three boxes of ketamine, similarly packaged, to a person named Kwong Kin-pan, at a public parking area in Tai Loong Street, Kwai Chung. Kwong Kin-pan has pleaded guilty to trafficking in the ketamine, and is awaiting sentence. He had also given evidence in the trial of the defendant. The total quantity of ketamine contained in these three boxes is 0.72 kilogramme of a powder containing 0.57 kilogramme of ketamine. The street value of the ketamine amounts to HK$83,520. This is the second count.

The defendant is 24 years old. He received education up to Form 5 level, and was a self-employed transportation worker before his arrest. He has an income of around 40,000 to 50,000 per month. He lived with his girlfriend and they have a daughter aged 1 year and 5 months.

The defendant has one previous criminal record of employing someone not lawfully employable, for which he was ordered to perform 140 hours of community service.

The quantity of ketamine involved in this case is large. In SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down the sentencing tariff for trafficking in ketamine. For trafficking in ketamine in a quantity of over one kilogramme, the starting point of sentence should be 14 years upwards.

In HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin and Ors [2013] 1 HKLRD 622, in deciding the appropriate sentence for trafficking in 5.1 kilogramme of ketamine, the Court of Appeal considered the tariff under Hii Siew Cheng and commented that the starting point for trafficking in 2 kilogrammes and 3 kilogrammes of ketamine should not be lower than a term of imprisonment for 18 years and 20 years.

In HKSAR v Chow Yau Ching CACC 517/2012, the Court of Appeal further considered the court’s comments in Sin Chung Kin and made reference to the principles set out in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 for trafficking in large quantity of heroin. The court confirmed that the appropriate starting point for trafficking in 2 kilogrammes to 3 kilogrammes of ketamine should be 18 years’ to 20 years’ imprisonment. This is the guideline I should follow in sentencing the defendant.

In the present case, the ketamine involved in the two counts were coming from the same bulk, and the two offences were committed within a close proximity in time. In fact, there is evidence that the defendant was delivering the drugs to different people that night, and Kwong was the first stop.

In my view, a global approach should be adopted in considering the sentence of the defendant. The total quantity of ketamine involved in the two charges is 2.32 kilogrammes. Applying the principles in Chow Yau Ching, the appropriate overall starting point should be a term of 18 and a half years’ imprisonment, and in this case, there is no mitigating factor.

To achieve a global sentence of 18 and a half years’ imprisonment, and taking into account the tariff laid down under Hii Siew Cheng, the appropriate sentence for count 1 should be 16 years’ imprisonment, and the appropriate sentence for count 2 should be 11 and a half years’ imprisonment, with 2 and a half years’ imprisonment of count 2 to run consecutively to the sentence of count 1, and the remaining sentence to run concurrently.

The defendant is sentenced to a total sentence of 18 years and 6 months.