HKSAR v. Wong Yun Fat

HCCC 433/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 433 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: Wong Yun-fat, by reason of your pleas of guilty, you are formally found guilty of one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs in 65.7 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134; and of possession of 9.69 grammes of the same drug, which is commonly known as ‘Ice’, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

The circumstances of your offending were simple. You were found to have on you three bags of ‘Ice’ when you were stopped and searched outside of the Wan Chai MTR Station on 17 February 2015, and when the police searched your home address, the remaining 9.69 grammes was found, along with electronic scales, tweezers and more resealable plastic bags.

At the time you tried to suggest that all of the drugs were for your own consumption, but by your plea, that was clearly not the case and the prosecution have given you the benefit of the doubt on the 9.69 grammes found inside of your home.

These offences occurred on 17 February 2015. You were last released from prison on 25 June 2015. You have a significant criminal history commencing in 1973 when you were just 20 years of age, and range from matters of violence to matters of dishonesty.

You were first convicted of possession of drugs in 2010 and convicted, once again, of possession in 2011 and 2015. You are now 62 years of age and, as you have said yourself, you have spent over 30 years of your life in prison.

I can see from your lengthy letter which you submitted to the court that you have made significant efforts over the years to address your offending, and that you seek to blame no one but yourself for what has become of your life.

Reading about the considerable effort that you have previously made to warn others away from the life which you have chosen to lead, I find it both sad and disappointing that you did not have the self-discipline to listen to and to follow your own advice.

You know the community in which you live provides extensive services to assist those who, like you, have spent a considerable amount of their lives behind bars. There are others who can help with your drug habit, and there is the church with which you have a close relationship and which would have come to your aid in your hour of need if you had but asked for help. Instead, you took the easy path and it has led you straight back to the High Court and to the inevitable prison sentence.

I have taken into account your substantial record, as I must. But I have also taken into consideration all that you have said within your letter to the court which has had the effect of persuading the court not to add to what must be the inevitable starting point for these offences by reason of your offending on this occasion. You are very lucky, Mr Wong, that I am minded to do so because your record warrants consideration of an enhanced sentence.

On Count 1, in accordance with the guideline case of HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, the sentencing range for trafficking in dangerous drugs in between 10 and 70 grammes of ‘Ice’ is 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment. For 65.7 grammes of ‘Ice’, I therefore take a starting point of 10 years and 6 months.

I also take into account the fact that this matter was committed whilst on police bail for a similar matter, at serial 12 of your criminal record. This is an aggravating feature. Having been given the benefit of the doubt by the learned magistrate, despite your previous attitude to sentencing, which I have to say is appalling, and having been granted bail you, nevertheless, committed these offences knowing full well what you were doing and the consequences.

There is no other meaningful mitigation for this particular type of offending, save for your very early guilty plea. Other matters raised on the last occasion were not proceeded with by the Department of Justice, and any small discount I might have been minded to credit you with for your assistance is clearly offset by your attitude in breaching your bail. So I consider that the assistance and the breach cancel each other out.

The sentence on Count 1 must therefore be 7 years and 1 month.

For the possession of 9.69 grammes of ‘Ice’ for your personal consumption, I take a starting point of 12 months in accordance with the guidance given by Stock VP in HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik CACC 165/2000, and I enhance it by 3 months to take into account the risk factor that these drugs too may have found their way onto the street as part of your trafficking enterprise. In the normal course of events, there would be a starting point of 21 months and a term of imprisonment after plea of 14 months. That would make a total of 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment after discount for your plea tendered at the first opportunity.

However, I have also taken into consideration the fact that if you had pleaded guilty to trafficking, the total amount of drugs from Count 1 and 2, that would be 75.39 grammes, and would have attracted a starting point of 11 years and 1 month, or 7 years and 4 months’ imprisonment after plea, and it would be wrong, therefore, to sentence you to any term of imprisonment equal to or in excess of that figure having taking into consideration all of the matters I have already mentioned.

So bearing that in mind the seriousness of this offending in the context of your previous offending, and the mitigation advanced on Count 1, you will go to prison for 7 years and 1 month; and on Count 2, you will go to prison for 14 months, 2 months of which will run consecutively to Count 1.

You will therefore go to prison for a total of 7 years and 3 months.