HKSAR v. Wong George

HCCC 121/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 121 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant, George Wong, pleaded guilty before me to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, Charge 1, and one of possession of a dangerous drug, Charge 2. Both offences took place on the 2nd day of October 2016. Charge 1 concerned 1,043 grammes of a mixture containing 798 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. Charge 2 concerned two hand-rolled cigarettes containing 1.02 grammes of a herbal material containing traces of heroin hydrochloride.

At about 0803 hours on the day in question, at the Shenzhen Bay Control Point, an incoming seven-seater Skylimo was selected for customs clearance upon its arrival. It was directed to the arrival private car examination point for clearance. The defendant, one of the passengers, was requested for a personal search. Upon search, inside a black bag carried by the defendant, the following items were found:

(1) Two hand-rolled cigarettes inside a paper cigarette packet (later confirmed to contain a total of 1.02 grammes of a herbal material containing traces of heroin hydrochloride).

(2) Three blocks wrapped by a plastic sheet (later confirmed to contain a total of 1,043 grammes of a mixture, in the form of a block, containing 798 grammes of heroin hydrochloride).

The defendant was arrested and cautioned. Under caution, the defendant admitted, inter alia, that:

(1) The three blocks contained heroin and they belonged to him.

(2) The white powder inside the two hand-rolled cigarettes was heroin and they were for the defendant’s own consumption.

(3) The defendant was going to Kwun Tong to deliver the three blocks of heroin to Kwun Tong to a Chinese male named ‘Dee Gor’.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted, inter alia, that:

(1) He had been unemployed for six to seven years.

(2) He went to the mainland for the purpose of waiting for someone’s call for ordering heroin.

(3) ‘Dee Gor’ was his friend whom he had known for a few years and ‘Dee Gor’ had instructed him to go to the mainland to order the heroin in Guangzhou in the night of 1 October 2016. He went to Lo Wu by MTR on 1 October 2016.

(4) At about 7 pm to 8 pm on 1 October 2016, ‘Dee Gor’ and his friend visited the defendant in Shenzhen. The friend of ‘Dee Gor’ gave the defendant 310,000 renminbi for buying drugs.

(5) The defendant then went to Guangzhou after 8 pm on 1 October 2016. In Guangzhou, the defendant was to wait for phone calls for instructions. The defendant was later instructed to pick up drugs at about 11 pm to midnight, on the street, on the same night.

(6) After picking up the drugs, the defendant went back to Shenzhen. The defendant then bought a seven-seater Skylimo ticket for crossing the border via Shenzhen Bay Control Point on 2 October 2016.

(7) The defendant intended to alight and then he would wait for instruction via phone calls for the delivery place in Kowloon. The delivery location could be Mong Kok, Jordan or Kwun Tong.

(8) He would be paid $4,500 for successful delivery for each block of heroin. He had carried three blocks in the present trip.

(9) The two sticks of cigarettes contained heroin and they were for the defendant’s own consumption.

The subject matter of Charge 1 had an estimated retail value of $783,293 at the time of seizure. The subject dangerous drug of the possession charge, Charge 2, had an estimated retail value of $766.02.

The defendant is aged 59. The criminal record of the defendant shows that he has a total of 17 previous convictions arising out of 10 matters. He was first convicted of two counts of burglary in 1974. In 2008, he was convicted of one charge of possession of dangerous drug. In 2014, he was convicted of one charge of divan keeping.

Mr Chan, in mitigation, submitted three mitigation letters written respectively by the defendant, the defendant’s wife and the defendant’s son. Mr Chan told me that the son of the defendant was admitted into university last year but he failed in his application for student finance assistance. The defendant tried to raise money to pay for his son’s tuition fee and in desperation, and abetted by others, the defendant committed the offence in question. The defendant is now very remorseful for what he had done.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges at the first available opportunity and Mr Chan submitted he should be given the full credit for his guilty pleas.

Mr Chan also submitted some written proof from Medicine Sans Frontiers showing that the defendant had been making regular donations to the organisation since April 2016. As for the criminal record of the defendant, Mr Chan submitted that since the year 2004, the defendant had tried to lead a law-abiding life intermittently. Mr Chan reckoned that the defendant is looking forward to a lengthy imprisonment and there is obviously a cross-border element in this case. Mr Chan urged me to impose concurrent terms of imprisonment for Charges 1 and 2.

In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind the nature and the quantity of the drugs involved, the facts as admitted by the defendant, and all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Chan.

Charge 1 concerned 798 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. Applying the tariff as set down in the case HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas [2009] 2 HKC at 197, a starting point of 20 years and 9 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for Charge 1. For the 2nd charge, a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.

There is a cross-border element in the present case as the defendant was bringing the drugs into Hong Kong from Shenzhen. The Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun, CACC 85/2014, said, at paragraph 9 of the judgment:

“As a broad guideline for drugs of this kind below 1,000 grammes, we will suggest the level of enhancement as follows:

(1) up to 250 grammes, 6 months;

(2) between 250 and 500 grammes, 6 months to 1 year;

(3) between 500 and 1,000 grammes, 1 year to 2 years.”

Charge 1 concerned 798 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. In my judgment, an enhancement of 18 months is appropriate. With the enhancement, the sentence for Charge 1 would be 22 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

On the information before me, in my judgment, a 40 per cent reduction is appropriate in this case. In coming to the conclusion that a 40 per cent reduction is appropriate in this case, I have taken into consideration the guilty pleas of the defendant and all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Chan.

The 40 per cent reduction, with a bit of rounding-up, would bring the sentence for Charge 1 down to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, that is 160 months’ imprisonment. With the 40 per cent reduction, the sentence of Charge 2 is 7 months’ imprisonment.

I have taken into consideration the totality principle. I order the sentences for Charge 1 and Charge 2 are to run concurrently with each other.