HKSAR v. Wong Wing Moon and Another

HCCC 80/2019

[2019] HKCFI 1838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 80 OF 2019

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

The defendants each pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

The defendants were on board a taxi with two other males. The taxi was intercepted by the police and after inquiries, D1 and D2 were taken to the hospital.

D1 eventually excreted one packet of dangerous drugs which upon analysis was found to be approximately 81.2 grammes of a mixture containing approximately 67.84 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

D2 excreted two packets which upon analysis were found to be 150.8 grammes of a mixture containing approximately 125.16 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. Both of them admitted that they went to Macau earlier that day to bring those drugs back to Hong Kong for a reward.

D1 is now aged 67. He has 45 items of previous convictions involving 54 charges. Out of them, five related to trafficking in dangerous drugs and there are other 25 charges involving dangerous-drugs offences. His last conviction was in 2015 September for possession of pipe or equipment fit and intended for smoking or injecting or inhaling. He received 4 months’ imprisonment and for a breach of suspended sentence, 3 months consecutively, which is a total of 7 months’ imprisonment. He was discharged from prison last on 27 November 2015.

D2 is aged 63. He has nine previous convictions involving 10 charges. His last conviction was in 2004. For a trafficking in dangerous drugs, he received 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment and was discharged on 20 April 2007.

By way of mitigation, counsel for D1 told me that D1 committed the offence for quick money. Miss See asked the court to take account of his early plea and co-operation with the police.

D2’s counsel, Miss Tsang, told me that before D2’s retirement, he used to work gainfully but because of deterioration in his health, he had to cease working and since his release from his last incarceration, he still took up odd jobs to make ends meet, but his 95‑year-old mother fell ill and he was driven to earn quick money for her medical expenses. But D2’s mother, unfortunately, passed away after his arrest for the present offence.

Both counsel acknowledged this case involved international factor and both defendants have appalling records, but nonetheless counsel urged the court to exercise leniency in passing sentence.

In sentencing D1 and D2, I have considered their guilty plea, mitigation forwarded by counsel on their behalf and the existing tariff for trafficking in heroin. According to the case of Lau Tak Ming, trafficking in heroin between 50 to 200 grammes, a starting point of 8 to 12 years is to be adopted.

For D1 who was involved in 67.84 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, a starting point of 8 years and 6 months is appropriate. Given his appalling record and it was an import from Macau, I enhance that by 9 months. He is entitled to his one-third discount and he is sentenced to 6 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

For D2 who was involved in trafficking of 125.16 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, a starting point of 10 years is appropriate. That is enhanced by 9 months to take into account that it was an import from Macau and his past record. I shall give him the full one-third discount for his plea and he is sentenced to 7 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.