HKSAR v. Wong Chi Pui

HCCC 276/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 276 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant, Wong Chi-pui, was charged with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. The defendant pleaded guilty before me and I convicted him of the offence after he admitted to the Summary of Facts.

The facts are relatively straightforward. A team of police officers conducted an anti-narcotics operation, observed a flat in Shun Hei House, Tuen Mun. The defendant was seen entering the flat, carrying a white bag. He later emerged from the flat, again carrying a white bag. The defendant was intercepted and the police found what was later confirmed to be 1,483 grammes of a powder containing 1,131 grammes of ketamine inside the white bag. The defendant was arrested and, under caution, he admitted he had taken out the ketamine to earn money.

The defendant was taken back into the flat for a search. Inside a sofa box in the living room, the police found what was later confirmed to be 494 grammes of a powder containing 351 grammes of ketamine. Although there were four persons, including the defendant, inside the flat at the time of the search and the defendant and the three were arrested, the defendant admitted under caution that the ketamine was placed there by him and he had no use of it yet.

The defendant attended two video-recorded interviews later. During the first video-recorded interview, he explained he moved to the flat half a month earlier and he had the ketamine on him for sale to earn money. He bought the drugs for $70,000 from someone at Lau Fau Shan. He was going to see somebody at Tin Shui Wai and sell it at a price of $12,000 for each 250 grammes. He could not find buyers for the two packets so he kept them in the sofa box.

In the second recorded interview, he gave details of his work, his purchase of the dangerous drugs in question and his plan to sell those found inside the white bag to another.

The street value of all the dangerous drugs seized, that is 1,977 grammes of a powder containing 1,482 grammes of ketamine, was estimated to be $249,102.

The defendant was 19 years of age at the time of the offence; he is now 20. He had three previous court appearances with five convictions recorded. In March 2012, he was convicted of one charge of criminal damage, one of common assault and one of criminal intimidation. He was put on probation and ordered to pay compensation of $100. He was later convicted of common assault in October 2012 and was sentenced to a detention centre, this time with the existing probation order discharged.

Then in 2013, he was convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug and he was sentenced to a training centre. He was discharged from training centre in May 2014. The defendant studied up to form 3 level and he had worked as a sushi apprentice and transportation worker. Prior to his arrest, he was earning a daily wage of $250 as a decoration worker.

In mitigation, his counsel, Mr Christopher Grounds, referred me to a number of cases in the High Court and on appeal, dealing with a similar amount of ketamine and with many defendants of a relatively young age. He also referred me to the case of HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin, CACC 458/2011. Basically, Mr Grounds asked me to impose as lenient as possible a sentence within the band, bearing in mind the immaturity of the defendant and his immediate declaration of remorse after he was arrested by the police.

I also have letters from the defendant, his father, his grandparents, uncles and aunts, and from teachers of his former school. They have all written letters to me. They all portray the defendant as a youngster who is easily led by bad elements into committing this serious crime. The family also informed me how the defendant’s incarceration had caused his parents to split.

During submission in court on 24 August, Mr Grounds disclosed to me the difficulties he faced when interviewing the defendant, prompting him to suspect the defendant might have suffered from some form of mental problem. As a result of what Mr Grounds told me, I called for a psychiatric report and also a psychological report on the defendant to know more about him prior to sentence.

As far as the psychiatric report is concerned, Dr Chan, the visiting psychiatrist at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, was of the view that the defendant does not suffer from any psychiatric disorder. Regarding the psychological report, the defendant is described as someone who lacks effective parenting and he developed anti-social personality traits due to exposure to negative peer influence. He is material oriented and is unable to delay gratification. He is immature and has insufficient consequential thinking. He also has poor emotional management skill.

Gathering this information from the psychologist’s report, in my view, his anti-social personality traits may well be the reason why Mr Grounds found it difficult to communicate with him in the past. But as far as the sentencing is concerned, I, of course, have to work on the basis that the defendant does not have any psychiatric problem, but I will also bear in mind the description of the defendant by the psychologist.

Today, Mr Grounds again urged me to be as lenient as possible in sentencing the defendant, commenting that it is hoped that the defendant will replace his anti-social personality traits with a pro-society one in the future.

Now, trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence. On conviction, on indictment, a person is liable to a fine of $5 million and to imprisonment for life. In the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, the Court of Appeal set down guidelines for the trafficking of ketamine. The ketamine involved here amounted to 1,482 grammes. Trafficking over 1,000 grammes of ketamine, the appropriate starting point is from 14 years upwards. On the authority of Sin Chung Kin which was referred to me by counsel, trafficking up to 2 kilogrammes, that is 2,000 grammes, of ketamine will call for a starting point between 14 and 18 years.

Of course, when considering the appropriate starting point, I do not just look at the quantity and use a mathematical formula to arrive at the starting point but, nevertheless, the amount of 1,482 grammes is a significant factor that I have to consider in this case. When I consider the appropriate starting point, I take into account all the circumstances of this case. I also take into account the relative young age of the defendant at the time, 19. I am of the view that taking all these into consideration, 14 years is an appropriate starting point.

The defendant already had one previous conviction of trafficking in a dangerous drug, leaving aside the other relatively minor charges. He was already sentenced to a training centre, and the defendant committed the present offence within a year after he was discharged from the training centre and committing the same kind of offence, trafficking in dangerous drugs.

It would be within my power and discretion to treat that as an aggravating factor to increase the starting point of 14 years. But having considered the background of the defendant, in particular, what the psychologist had said about him, I am prepared not to enhance the starting point. As Mr Grounds had said, I also hope that the defendant learned a lesson this time and would not be continuing with his anti-social personality traits.

The defendant had entered a timely plea and is entitled to a full one-third discount. Apart from his plea, I do not see any other grounds to further reduce his sentence. I would add that the pain and hardship suffered by his family due to the breakup of his parents does not amount to special circumstances to further reduce the sentence. With a one-third discount, the sentence is one of 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

So the defendant is sentenced to 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug.