HKSAR v. Wong Kin Wai

HCCC 366/2017

[2018] HKCFI 573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 366 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence in relation to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug. In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case including its nature and facts, in particular, the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The defendant was stopped by customs officers when he came out from an industrial building. Inside the paper bag he was carrying, a packet of ‘Ice’ was found. Under caution, he admitted that he was going to distribute the drug for a promised reward of $1,000. Later, at a mini self-storage store in the said industrial building, a further quantity of ‘Ice’ was found in a store.

The dangerous drug which the defendant was carrying was 979 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 953 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The dangerous drug in the self-storage store was nine packets containing a total of 4,922.32 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 4,791.26 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. In other words, the total quantity of the narcotic content the defendant trafficked in was about 5,700 grammes of ‘Ice’.

I was told that the defendant is now 32 years of age. He received education up to Form 5 and had worked as a hair stylist. He is single and had been living with his parents in a public housing flat. The defendant has only one criminal conviction record in 2009 for an offence of possession of dangerous drug, a probation order was imposed.

Learned defence counsel, Mr Cheung, asked the court to take into account that the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He told the court that the defendant committed the offence as he has to repay family debts in the sum of around $40,000. It was under this financial stress that the defendant agreed to store and deliver drugs for a promised reward of $1,000 per kilogramme which he had never received. He was arrested on the first occasion he delivered drugs.

Mr Cheung informed the court that the defendant had performed volunteer work by providing free haircutting services to elderly people and family members are present in the court to show their support to the defendant. The defence produced letters written by the elder brother of the defendant and two preachers as well as letters written by the defendant both to the court and to his grandmother and mother. In his letters, the defendant expressed remorse. His brother speaks well of the defendant and is confident of his determination to turn over a new leaf. The preachers said the defendant is under good influence of the religion.

In the circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that in consideration of the sentence, the total quantity of the dangerous drug shall be taken into account. I do not consider there is any aggravating feature in the present case.

It was held in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun, CACC 524/2011, that in a case of trafficking in ‘Ice’, if the narcotic content exceeded 600 grammes, the same tariff as prescribed in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437, should be applied. In Abdallah, it was held that if the narcotic content involved was 4,000 to 15,000 grammes, an imprisonment term of 26 to 30 years should be considered.

In all the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 26½ years for each charge. The defendant pleaded guilty to these offences, he is, therefore, entitled to a one-third discount.

Having regard to the whole circumstances, including mitigation submission of Mr Cheung, in my judgment, this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to.

For the above said reasons, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 17 years and 8 months for each charge; the sentences to run concurrently. You are to serve a total sentence of 17 years and 8 months for the two charges.