HKSAR v. Wong Man Ho

HCCC 450/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 450 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant, Mr Wong Man-ho, pleads guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. The particulars of offence are that the defendant, on the 23rd day of June 2015, outside Houston Centre, No 63 Mody Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 1.49 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.47 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Facts Admitted

On 22 June 2015, staff of FedEx found a parcel to be delivered suspicious and informed the Customs and Excise Department. The parcel consisted of a FedEx box containing a paper gift box. Inside the gift box, there were two wine glasses on top of a piece of cloth with some packaging materials. After removing the cloth and the packaging materials, Customs and Excise officers found some carbon paper wrapping seven resealable plastic bags containing a total of 1.49 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.47 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly called ‘Ice’.

The parcel was sent by a young male at the Tsim Sha Tsui service centre of FedEx at about 1510 hours on 22 June 2015. The Customs and Excise officers contacted the sender, inviting him to come to the Tsim Sha Tsui service centre to correct some information on the airway bill. The defendant arrived at 1807 hours on 23 June 2015. A FedEx staff member told him to amend and sign the airway bill again and directed him to a Customs and Excise officer who disguised as a FedEx staff member. The defendant however told the Customs and Excise officer that he wanted to take back the parcel. When the defendant was about to pick up the parcel, he was arrested.

Under caution, he said that he had sent the parcel to Australia for a male called “Ka Chun” for a reward of $5,000. He did not know what was inside the parcel but guessed that it was something not good. When FedEx informed that there were some problems with the shipment of the parcel, he was told by Ka Chun to deal with it for a further reward of $5,000. He did not remember the contact details of Ka Chun. The defendant was identified by the FedEx staff as the one who posted the parcel.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant refused to answer any question.

Two of the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the packaging inside the parcel.

The estimated market retail value of the dangerous drug was $581,100.

Criminal Record

The defendant has a clear criminal record.

Mitigation

The defendant is aged 26, received Form 3 education and was a warehouse assistant, operating forklift, earning about $9,500 a month. Counsel for the defendant tells the court that the defendant, in order to supplement his income, also worked part-time in a wine bar, earning about $2,000 to $5,000 a month.

The defendant has come from a closely-knitted family. The defendant’s father is aged 72 and is a security guard. The defendant’s mother is aged 63 and suffers from breast cancer. He has an elder brother who is a fire system installation worker. The parents are in court today to support the defendant. The defendant contributed $5,000 to the household expenses of the family every month.

Shortly before arrest, he moved out of the family to live with his girlfriend. They rented a flat and the rental was $5,000 a month, split up between the defendant and his girlfriend.

The defendant posted the parcel on behalf of Ka Chun. Out of the reward of $5,000, he had to spend $3,000 to go to Macau to buy the two wine glasses which were found inside the parcel.

According to the defence counsel, the defendant is also facing another case of similar nature involving about 900 grammes of ‘Ice’. The defendant was going to plead guilty in that case but as there was a co-defendant who is not pleading guilty, the case had to go to trial.

The defence counsel asks the court to be lenient to the defendant.

Sentence

According to HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691 and HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437, trafficking in a quantity of 1,200 grammes to 4,000 grammes of ‘Ice’, the starting point is 23 to 26 years imprisonment. The amount of ‘Ice’ involved in the present case is 1,470 grammes. The starting point is therefore about 23 years and 3 months imprisonment.

In a case of such serious nature, the clear record of the defendant does not constitute a valid ground for mitigation. The court sees no reason to depart from the sentencing guidelines, thus adopting 23 years 3 months imprisonment as the basic starting point.

The parcel was to be sent to Australia, thus involving an international element which necessitates the starting point to be enhanced. After considering the case of HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun, CACC 85/2014, and other similar cases, the court enhances the starting point to 25 years and 3 months imprisonment.

The defendant was committed to High Court for trial before the decision of HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1 which laid down new guidelines for discount in sentence for the plea of guilty. The present case was originally set down for trial for 21 to 28 February 2017 which was well after the new guidelines had been laid down. The trial days however had to be vacated when consideration was to be given to consolidate the present case with the other case which the defendant was facing. If the defendant had indicated his desire to plead guilty earlier, the court’s time assigned for the original trial of this case could have been saved.

As the defendant only indicated that he was going to plead guilty in October 2017, the initial view of this court is that the defendant should not be given the full one-third discount in sentence for his plea of guilty. The prosecution and the defence, however, inform the court that it has been the practice of other judges to give the full one-third discount to a defendant in cases of similar situation.

In the interests of justice and for the sake of uniformity in sentencing, the court decides to give the full one-third discount in sentence to the defendant for his plea of guilty and sentences him to 16 years and 10 months imprisonment.