HKSAR v. Wong Ngan Sze

DCCC 664/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 664 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. Particulars are that she on 23^rd May 2017 unlawfully trafficked in a 16.6g mixture which contained 9.41g of heroin hydrochloride at Dundas Street near Portland Street in Mongkok.

Summary of facts

2.The defendant, who was acting furtively, was intercepted by two patrolling Police officers at around 8:50pm on the charge date on Dundas Street.

3.Upon search at scene, nothing incriminating was found on the defendant. She was however arrested for failing to produce her identity card.

4.The defendant was brought back to Mongkok Police station. Police officers noticed that she was walking in an awkward manner and a more thorough search was conducted on the defendant.

5.A transparent re-sealable plastic bag wrapped inside a piece of tissue was found inside the defendant’s underwear. There were 110 pellets of suspected dangerous drugs inside the plastic bag.

6.There was also a piece of paper inside the piece of tissue with the handwritten words “110” on one side and “23/5” and “110-33+2=75” on the other.

7.Government Chemist later confirmed the pellets contained a mixture of 16.6g, with a total narcotic content of 9.41g of heroin hydrochloride, with an estimated street price of $14,209.

8.The defendant was arrested for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs. Under caution, she admitted that the drugs belonged to her.

9.The defendant just had a mobile phone and no cash on her at the time of her arrest. The defendant’s home was searched and nothing incriminating was found.

10.At a later video recorded interview, the defendant said that the heroin belonged to her; that she bought it for $10,000 from an unknown male in Nam Cheong Park in Sham Shui Po.

11.The defendant admitted to the last paragraph of the summary of facts that was read out to her, where it is stated that she at all material times possessed the drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Previous convictions

12.The defendant has 5 previous convictions. Of those, 3 were for possession of dangerous drugs. 2 of them were in 1999 and one in 2006. The defendant’s last conviction was on 24^th September 2011 when she was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment for one charge of theft.

Mitigation

13.The defendant is 37 years old. She was educated up to Form 5 level in Hong Kong.

14.I was told that the defendant is a long term heroin addict. Mr Davies for the defendant, however, confirmed that the defendant is not putting forward the ground that a significant proportion of the seized heroin was for her self-consumption. There is no application for a discount in sentence on that basis.

15.The defendant chose to traffic in the drugs in order to support her drug addiction.

16.The defendant was abandoned when she was young and was brought up by her grandfather. The defendant’s father was also a drug addict and he had not been around much.

17.The defendant has two children with two different men. They are aged 14 and 1 and a half, who are being cared for by the grandmother and at a child protection home respectively.

18.The defendant understands that she will be incarcerated for a long time. She wishes to take this opportunity to rid herself of her drug habit so that she will be able to look after her children when she is released.

Sentencing guidelines

19.The applicable guideline sentence for trafficking in heroin hydrochloride was laid down in the case of R v Lau Tak Ming, CACC 230/1989. The sentencing tariff for trafficking in up to 10g of heroin is that of 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment.

20.For the 9.41g of narcotics in our present case, I will take an arithmetical approach and adopt a starting point of 57 months’ imprisonment.

21.Although the defendant has 3 previous convictions for possession of dangerous drugs, even the latest one dates back to more than 11 years ago. Her last conviction was for theft when she was imprisoned for 2 months. That conviction was more than 6 years ago. Given the nature of the offences and the time elapsed since the convictions, I do not categorize the defendant as a persistent offender and will not enhance her sentence on this basis.

22.There are no aggravating factors concerning the defendant’s commission of the offence.

23.Although I do sympathize with the defendant’s life story, I find that the only mitigating factor is the defendant’s timely guilty plea. There is no reason to deviate from the guideline tariff. She is to be granted the full one-third discount for her plea of guilty.

24.The defendant is, therefore, sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment.