HKSAR v. Wong Chun Fung

DCCC 554/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 554 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.At around 1:10 am on 8 April 2017, the police stopped the Defendant for enquiry as he appeared to be furtive.  He held a paper bag containing a paper box.  In the paper box was a resealable plastic bag with 119 grammes of a solid containing 51.9 grammes of ketamine.  Upon enquiry, he said he was promised a reward of $1,000 to deliver the ketamine to a certain recipient at a certain place to be named.  The police had arrested him before he knew to whom and where to deliver it.  He was a decoration worker with an income of $20,000 per month.  He had a habit of taking ketamine.  His daily consumption was 1 gramme. 

3.The police estimated the street value of the drug to be around $31,416.

4.He will soon turn 29.  He last worked as a decoration worker.  He has been a drug addict for 10 years and as a result suffered from deterioration of health.  He lives with his parents, who require constant medication.  He committed the present offence to get money for drugs and his mother, who is a compulsive gambler and has accumulated very substantial debts.  He had 5 convictions for simple possession but none for trafficking. 

5.His solicitor Mr. Mui informs this Court that he intended to buy part of the bulk from the recipient upon completion of delivery, so that the starting point might be reduced by 10 – 25% according to HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang [2012] 2 HKLRD 1121.  I do not accept this proposition for first, such intention was never mentioned in his response to the police at any stage, secondly, the bulk was in a single package not readily divisible in the absence of paraphernalia such as electronic scale and small plastic bags, thirdly, he did not know the identity of the recipient, let alone making a deal with the recipient to sell a part of it to him at a price acceptable to both sides.  

6.It is also submitted that serving time in jail is harsher for him than someone of normal health as his kidney has so much deteriorated that he has to urinate very often.  It is difficult for him to take up any gainful employment.  I adjourn this case for a medical report to explore this aspect.   The medical report is now available to confirm such condition.  The medical opinion is that he has to urinate every 15 or 20 minutes and the prognosis does not look good.  

7.There are sentencing guidelines for traffickers of ketamine laid down in HKSAR v Hii Siew Cheng [2007] 1 HKLRD 1.  For 10 – 50 g of ketamine, the sentence shall be 4 – 6 years.  For 50 – 300 g of ketamine, the sentence shall be 6 – 9 years.  

8.Based on the sentencing guidelines, I take a starting point of 6 years.  There is a one-third discount for his plea of guilty.  Further, I give him a discount for his poor medical condition to the extent of 6 months.  The sentence is 3 years 6 months.