HKSAR v. Wong Sing Chi, Jacky and Another

DCCC 894/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 894 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.In this case, the police found two types of drugs, ie, cocaine and methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’, and a bottle fit for inhaling ‘Ice’ in a hotel room where the two defendants were present.

2.The total amount of drugs are 8.88 grammes of a solid containing 8.10 grammes of cocaine, and 1.01 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.91 grammes of ‘Ice’.   

3.Originally, both defendants were jointly charged with one count of trafficking in both types of drugs (that is Charge 1). They were also charged with possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug.  The subject matter is a bottle fit for inhaling ‘Ice’.

4.They both denied the charges, but after trial the 1st defendant was convicted of Charges 1 and 2, whilst D2 was convicted of Charge 1 only but acquitted of Charge 2.  As far as the trafficking offence is concerned, the court only convicted both defendants of trafficking in cocaine only.  So the amount of drugs they trafficked is 8.88 grammes of a solid containing 8.10 grammes of cocaine.

5.The prosecution’s case is very simple and straightforward.  On the date of offence the police, armed with a court search warrant, went to a hotel in Yau Ma Tei.  Police officers knocked on the door telling the person inside to open up, but no response.  Police officers used a spare key to open the hotel room.  Upon entry police found the two defendants inside. 

6.A search of the hotel room was conducted in their presence.  Three bags of drugs, plus one tinfoil packet containing drugs, were found on the bedside table.  Next to these drugs was a bottle fit for inhaling ‘Ice’.  On the bedside table, two of the bags and the tinfoil packet contained ‘Ice’.  The remaining bag contained 0.20 grammes of cocaine.

7.Police further found on the false ceiling 43 bags of cocaine which were kept in a black plastic bag.  Police found, altogether, 44 bags of cocaine including the one on the bedside table.

8.A body search was conducted on the 1st defendant by an officer and nothing was found.  On the contrary, the 2nd defendant has large amounts of cash in her possession: $48,526.90.  Excluding the coins, which amount to $36.90, the value of banknotes comes to $48,490.

9.The court only came to know about the relationship between the 1st and the 2nd defendant after their conviction.  They are, in fact, husband and wife.  They have an 11-year-old daughter.  D1, aged 39, has amassed 23 convictions over the past 20 years, 4 of them are drug-related but none had anything to do with trafficking in dangerous drugs.  D2 has a clear record.

10.There is not much put forward by way of mitigation, except that counsel reminds the court of the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in cocaine.  Trafficking up to 10 grammes, the terms for consideration is 2 to 5 years.  On the amount that the court found that both defendants trafficked is 8.10 grammes of cocaine.  On this amount, I take 4 years and 4 months as a starting point.  For the reason of their acting in concert, I add 3 months on top to bring it to 4 years and 7 months.

11.For Charge 2, I take 9 months as a starting point.  In the case of 1st defendant, I found nothing to reduce the sentence. His sentence is therefore as follows:

Charge 1- 4 years and 7 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 2- 9 months’ imprisonment.

Both terms are to run concurrently. The total term is one of 4 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

12.For D2, I take into account her clear record, I reduce that by 1 month and I see nothing to reduce the sentence any further, D2 is therefore sentenced to 4½ years’ imprisonment.