HKSAR v. Wong Chau Lung

HCCC 112/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 112 OF 2015

_______________

_______________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
____________

1.On 24 September 2014, Customs Officers at the Customs Arrival Hall at Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point intercepted the defendant. They searched him and found in his possession a sealed paper packet containing 18 plastic bags of ketamine. He was arrested and later charged for trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.On 13 March 2015, the defendant was committed for trial to the High Court where on 29 April 2015 his case was fixed for pre-trial review on 20 January 2016 and for trial from 29 March to 8 April 2016.  By way of letter dated 4 January 2016, the solicitors acting for the defendant indicated that he would plead guilty to the charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.  Accordingly, an order was made vacating the dates for his trial and fixing his plea and sentence on the day previously fixed for the pre-trial review.

3.On 20 January 2016, the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of trafficking and admitted a summary of facts, describing briefly the circumstances of the offence.  It was indicated that certain preliminary inquiries had been conducted with the defendant and further time was requested for the inquiries to be completed.  I am informed that nothing has come of these inquiries and will therefore have no bearing on the sentence now to be imposed upon the defendant.

4.The facts agreed in support of his plea of guilty are that he was in possession of the drugs and that he was trafficking in them.  The movement record of the defendant revealed that on 23 September 2014 in the early evening he departed from Hong Kong via the Lo Wu terminal and returned the next day in the early evening via the Lok Mak Chau Spur Line Control Point.  The drugs consisted of 251.40 g of a powder containing 198.70 g of ketamine.  The estimated street value of the drugs at the time of the offence was HK$31,927.80.

5.The defendant is 27 years of age.  He was born in Hong Kong and completed Form 5 education.  He is single and at the time of the offence worked as a salesperson, earning approximately $15,000 per month. His parents separated some eight years ago and he set up home taking care of his younger brother who was 7 years of age at the time.  He has a prior criminal record for possession of a dangerous drug in 2010 for which he was fined $2,000.  This would indicate that the offence was relatively minor, although it does reveal that he was not a newcomer to the drug scene.  He claims however that he is not a drug addict.

6.It is submitted on his behalf that he got involved in this offence because of financial difficulties that he was experiencing and that rather stupidly thought he could make some easy money by transporting the drugs from mainland China to Hong Kong.  Unfortunately for him, he will have plenty of time to reflect how easy money is not so easy, during the time in prison, serving the sentence for this offence.  I have had letters submitted to me from the defendant and his younger brother both explaining the circumstances of their family situation.  The defendant further explains that he sought to make extra money to pay for his younger brothers schooling expenses.

7.It is also submitted that the defendant is a decent young man who was led astray by mixing with the wrong people and agreeing with them to transport the drugs.  However, he has committed a very serious crime for which the sentencing guideline case fixes a range of penalties depending on the narcotic content of the drugs involved for this type of offending.

8.The sentencing regime for trafficking in ketamine is governed by guidelines laid down in S for J v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. 

9.The narcotic content of the drugs was 198.70 g which falls within the band between 50 and 300 g for which a starting point after trial of a term of imprisonment is fixed of 6 to 9 years.  I will adopt a starting point of 7 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.  There is an international element in this case in bringing drugs into Hong Kong which is an aggravating factor warranting an enhancement of the sentence.  I will therefore increase the sentence by 9 months..  This will result in a starting point of 8 years and 6  months’ imprisonment which I will reduce by one-third for the defendant’s guilty plea to 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. 

10.The defendant is sentenced to 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Mr Bobby Cheung, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Ms Munira Moosdeen, instructed by Ivan Tang & Co, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant