HKSAR v. Wong Yuk Ping

HCCC 108/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 108 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

Background and the facts

This afternoon, the defendant pleaded guilty before me to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted the Summary of Facts.

Briefly, on 16 December 2015, the police tailed a private car being driven by the defendant from Yuen Long to Hong Kong. Eventually, the car was stopped by the police and upon a search, a carton box containing three transparent plastic bags of ‘Ice’, which is now particularised in the count as a total of 2,957 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2,786 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, was found on the floor of the front passenger seat.

The defendant was arrested and under caution, he told the police that as he was in debt, he helped others to deliver the ‘Ice’.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant disclosed further particulars and said that his reward was to be HK$4,000 but he had not yet received any.

The estimated retail value of the drug was about HK$958,000 at the time of seizure.

The defendant’s background and mitigation

The defendant is aged 55 and is single. He has completed his secondary education and was said to be a taxi driver prior to his arrest. The defendant has got one previous criminal conviction of possession of a dangerous drug, in respect of which he was fined, in 1995.

In mitigation, Ms Chong for the defendant gave a very detailed background of the defendant, starting from his childhood experience to shortly before his arrest.

In brief, it was said that the defendant committed the present offence merely because of financial difficulties. The reason for his being in debt was said to be raising funds for his father’s medical expenses, who unfortunately passed away in 2016.

Tariffs

The tariffs for trafficking in ‘Ice’ were originally laid down in AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 and corrected in HKSAR v Capitania, CACC 28/2004 (11 August 2004, unreported). For trafficking over 600 grammes of ‘Ice’, a term of 18 years’ imprisonment and upwards is called for.

In HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, the Court of Appeal recast the guidelines for trafficking in ‘Ice’, in that, for amounts of 600 grammes and over, the same tariffs as are prescribed in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 are to be applied. In other words, for 1,200 grammes to 4,000 grammes of ‘Ice’, a term of imprisonment of 23 to 26 years is appropriate, after trial.

Having considered the amount of ‘Ice’ involved and the facts of this case, I am going to adopt a starting point of 24½ years, that is 294 months in total.

Clearly, the defendant’s financial situation is not a ground for mitigation. The defendant pleaded guilty and he would receive a one-third reduction in sentence. Other than this, there is nothing which would warrant any further reduction in sentence.

Twenty-four and a half years reduced by one-third is 16 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

This is the term the defendant is going to serve.