HKSAR v. Wan Ho Yin

HCCC 77/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 77 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

He was seen acting suspiciously outside a public toilet. He was stopped and searched by police officers. A resealable plastic bag containing drugs was found in his right trouser pocket.

Under caution he said that he was helping someone to deliver the ‘Ice’ for $2,000. Four $500 banknotes were found inside his other pocket.

Upon analysis it was found the bag contained a total of 12.4 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 12.09 of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The retail value of the ‘Ice’ at that time was about $5,233.

He is now aged 30. He has six items of previous convictions, but none are drugs-related. His last conviction was in January 2011 for tampering with a motor vehicle. He received a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment.

By way of mitigation, it was advanced that the present case contained special features which can afford the defendant more than the usual one-third discount for his guilty plea.

(1) Counsel urged that the defendant had spent 6 months in custody awaiting his trial in relation to a crime which he was finally acquitted of in 2012. Counsel said:

“This is an opportunity for society to give him the benefit of the 6 months for an offence he had not committed.”

(2) The second factor urged on his behalf was that he has tried his best to assist the police officers after his arrest.

(3) It was urged that the defendant was merely a courier as opposed to those organisers behind the scene.

(4) It was advanced that the defendant’s family circumstances, namely that his garage business suffered a downturn, and that he had to shoulder the responsibility to take care of his divorced sister and his mother who was separated from his father which eventually led him to commit the present offence to earn quick money.

In sentencing the defendant, I have taken into account his guilty plea, the nature of the drugs, the relevant sentencing tariff and mitigation advanced.

The tariff laid down in the case of Ching Kwok Hung, trafficking in 10 to 70 grammes of ‘Ice’ attracts a starting point from 7 to 10 years was recasted in Tam Yi Chun, but Tam Yi Chun was handed down on 9 June 2014 after this case.

Therefore, in relation to the present case I still adopt the tariff laid down in Ching Kwok Hung. The narcotics in the present case is 12.09 grammes. I adopt a starting point 7 years’ imprisonment.

Whilst I do sympathise with the defendant’s predicament, the other mitigation advanced are not factors which I can afford him further discount than the usual one-third for his guilty plea. Financial stringency, a small cog in the wheel in a trafficking business are not matters which I can really give further discount of.

As to cooperation with the authorities, the law is clear as to the basis for earning such discount. The basis for such has not been made out or fulfilled in the present case.

Therefore, with a one-third discount from the starting point he goes to prison for 56 months, that is 4 years and 8 months.