HKSAR v. Wong Shing Yu

HCCC 143/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 143 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant, Wong Shing-yu, a 26-year-old man, pleaded guilty before a magistrate to a single charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, and has been committed to this court for sentence.

The particulars of the offence were that on the 14th day of July 2015 at Room C, Flat D, 3rd Floor, Happy Centre, 178-184, Cheung Sha Wan Road, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 285.10 grammes of a solid containing 185.92 grammes of ketamine.

Before the magistrate he also admitted the summary of facts prepared by the prosecution. The summary reads as follows:

"1. In the morning of 14 July 2015, a team of police officers mounted an anti-narcotic operation at the staircase near Flat D, 3rd Floor, Happy Centre, 178-184, Cheung Sha Wan Road, Sham Shui Po.

2. At 12.54 pm on the same day after the accused exited from a room of the flat, he was intercepted. He told the officer that he was living at Room C of the flat.

Upon being told that he was suspected to have dangerous drugs in his possession the accused immediately reached out his right hand to the area between his blue underpants and the grey underpants and took out seven transparent plastic bags each containing five transparent plastic bags of suspected ketamine.

The 35 plastic bags of suspected ketamine were later found to be a total of 93.7 grammes of a solid containing 56.52 grammes of ketamine.

3. Under caution, the accused said, "My friend Sing Chai, asked me to give out the goods for him. I could receive $800 for a small size". He later explained that "small size" meant 250 grammes of ketamine.

4. A Samsung mobile phone, a Nokia mobile phone, cash HK$14,080 and seven keys were found in his possession.

5. With the keys found on him the officers entered Room C for a search. The following were found in the drawers of the bed: a transparent plastic box containing suspected ketamine, which was later found to be 85.4 grammes of a solid containing 45.8 grammes of ketamine; a transparent plastic bag containing 40 transparent plastic bags containing suspected ketamine, which was later found to be a total of 106 grammes of a solid containing 83.6 grammes of ketamine; an electronic scale; a plastic spoon; a large quantity of empty resealable plastic bags of different sizes.

6. Upon further caution, the accused admitted that all the ketamine found would be delivered in accordance with Sing Chai's instruction.

7. Hence, a total of 285.1 grammes of a solid containing 185.92 grammes of ketamine was found in this case. At the time of seizure the ketamine has an estimated retail value of HK$41,625.

8. During the subsequent video-recorded interview, the accused stated the following. He has known Sing Chai for about a year. About two months ago Sing Chai gave him money to buy the Nokia phone for communicating with Sing Chai about selling "K Chai" to customers.

The ketamine had been given by Sing Chai, and he was told that the drug was ketamine. Sing Chai would give him the customers' phone numbers for him to fix the transaction places. He helped Sing Chai to deliver ketamine since March or April 2015. He would receive $800 for selling 250 grammes of ketamine.

He was shown the Samsung mobile phone from which he identified Sing Chai's phone number. He would also use this phone to communicate with Sing Chai via WhatsApp. As he owed around $20,000 to Sing Chai, he sold ketamine for the latter to settle the debt. He was unemployed since March 2015. He last worked as a construction site worker."

According to the sentencing guidelines for ketamine in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323, for trafficking in 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine the sentence would be in the range of 6 to 9 years' imprisonment.

Drug trafficking is a very serious offence, and sentencing is almost wholly dependent on established guidelines and authorities, save in rare circumstances personal situation matters little and very little discretion is left to the sentencer.

On behalf of the defendant, her counsel makes the submission that part of the drugs seized was for the defendant's own consumption. She says that the defendant was an addict and that supports her allegation of self-consumption.

However, in paragraph 6 of the summary of facts I read out, the defendant admitted that all the ketamine found would be delivered in accordance with Sing Chai's instruction - Sing Chai being the supplier and his boss.

This contradicts the allegation made by counsel and I do not accept that as a mitigating factor. The defendant has two criminal records, one of which was possession of a dangerous drug for which he was sent to DATC on 29 April 2014, and according to his antecedents statement he was last discharged from DATC on 12 November 2014. He committed the present offence about 8 months later, but according to his caution statement, that is in paragraph 8 of the summary of facts I read out, he helped Sing Chai to deliver ketamine since March or April 2015.

It is a sad story that this young man joined the trafficking ranks in March or April 2015 so soon after he was supposed to be rid of his addiction in the DATC. His counsel explained that because he met an injury to his leg while he was working and that is why he was no longer working at the construction site, and he also engaged in trafficking because he owed a gambling debt of about HK$20,000.

All this said, but they are not excuses. He should have engaged himself in useful employment but not in committing crimes. But I do not take all these into consideration to aggravate sentence.

Taking all these circumstances into account the starting point I adopt is 7 years and 6 months' imprisonment. The defendant is entitled to a full one-third discount for his guilty plea, which reduces the starting point to 5 years.

I accordingly sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment for 5 years.