HKSAR v. Wong Lai-na

HCCC 228/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 228 OF 2018

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

The defendant was charged with an offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

The particulars were that the defendant, on 9 January 2018, outside Kwai Kin House in Kwai Fong Estate, unlawfully trafficked 27 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 26.9 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “Ice”.

The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.

The facts admitted by the defendant disclosed that, on 9 January 2018 at around 12.45 am, police officers were conducting anti-dangerous drugs operation and stopped the defendant outside Kwai Kin House. Upon search, a packet of suspected dangerous drugs, which were later confirmed to be those specified in the charge, was found inside the defendant’s handbag.

The defendant was arrested and, under caution, the defendant said she helped someone known as “Mo Gor” to deliver the dangerous drugs to a customer. She only earned $300 and she asked for a chance.

A video recorded interview was conducted later. The defendant said she came to know a male known as “Mo Gor” the day before. “Mo Gor” asked her if she wanted to make quick money. Upon the defendant saying yes, she was given the packet of dangerous drug. The defendant was told to deliver the packet to a customer at Kwai Fong Estate. She was promised $300. The defendant placed the packet of dangerous drug inside her handbag. While waiting for the customer, she was arrested. The defendant had not received her reward from “Mo Gor”.

The estimated street value of the “Ice” seized was $15,066.

The defendant is now 28 years of age. Defendant has an 8‑year-old daughter who is being looked after by foster parents. She was unemployed and was staying with her boyfriend at the time of arrest.

The defendant is not a first offender, having appeared in court on two occasions with two convictions: one was making off without payment and the other was theft. For the offence of making off without payment, the defendant was given a 4-month’s sentence, suspended for 3 years, in 2015. For the offence of theft, which was committed during the 3 year period of suspension, the defendant was sentenced to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

Mr Chu, mitigating on behalf of the defendant, informed this Court that the defendant abused “Ice” four times a week, taking 1 gramme each time. Mr Chu could not make any meaningful submission why the suspended sentence should not be activated. He asked me to give the defendant the full one-third discount.

The defendant had written to me, saying that she came from a single-parent family and was pregnant with her child when she was 20 years old. She said she committed the present offence as she could not make ends meet with the CSSA from the government. She has since become a Christian and pledged not to abuse drug anymore. She begged for a chance to reform herself and to be with her daughter sooner.

Offences involving dangerous drug are serious, particularly when the trafficking of dangerous drugs is involved. A person convicted on indictment of this offence is liable to a fine of $5 million and to imprisonment for life. In the case of HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, the Court of Appeal set down guidelines for the trafficking of “Ice”.

The “Ice” involved in this case was 26.9 grammes, which falls under the bracket, or in the bracket, of between 10 to 70 grammes, with a starting point between 7 to 11 years. For a person with a clear record, trafficking such an amount of “Ice”, that is 26.9 grammes, I am of the view that a proper starting point would have been 8 years.

Although the defendant does not have a clear record, her record was not that bad and she did not have any previous conviction of drug-related offence. Though she is a drug abuser, I will not enhance this starting point of 8 years.

The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to the full one-third discount. I do not see any other grounds to further reduce the sentence.

So, for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the defendant is sentenced to 5 years 4 months’ imprisonment.

Now, the defendant committed the present offence during the 3-year suspension period. Though this offence is of a different nature, I do not see any reason why the sentence of 4 months’ imprisonment should not be activated.

So I order that the 4 months’ imprisonment imposed for the offence of making off without payment to be activated in full, to run consecutively to the sentence of 5 years and 4 months.