COURT: On 8 November of this year, each of the defendants appeared before me and confirmed their earlier pleas of guilty which were made on 12 February 2018 and also the Summaries of Facts which had been provided in the Magistrates’ Court in support of the charges and the pleas of guilty.
Sentencing of each was then adjourned pending the outcome of the trial of their co-accused, Li Ho-yin in HCC 54/2018. That trial was conducted by me and a jury and was concluded on 20 November 2018. Li Ho-yin was acquitted.
I must now pass the sentences on Tang Kwok-wai, Wong Yuk-wai, Ng Ka-lun and Kwan Chun-yuen. The charges to which each defendant have pleaded guilty arose out of a police operation which took place on 15 October 2016 at the Ocean Wifi Hotel located on the 3rd Floor, Mascot House, 746-8 Nathan Road in Kowloon.
On that afternoon, police officers conducted an anti-narcotics operation in and about the hotel. At about 1445, Tang Kwok-wai was intercepted at the 3rd floor rear staircase of Mascot House. He was searched and found to be in possession of two plastic bags which were later determined to contain 2.3 grammes of a powder containing 0.21 grammes of ketamine. That forms the substance of the 1st charge that he pleaded guilty to.
He also had with him a key to Room 2 of the Ocean Wifi Hotel. The police escorted him back that room and as they approached, Tang shouted, “Police”, to presumably alert others in the vicinity. They entered Room 2 and found, amongst other things, a plastic bag containing four plastic bags, which was later determined to be 1,226 grammes of a mixture containing 142 grammes of ketamine, and this forms the substance of Charge 2 to which he pleaded guilty.
There were also found a large quantity of empty resealable plastic bags, an electronic scale, two mobile phones and other items. Tang was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs and he told the police, and I quote, “That he was paid $2,000 to monitor the K-chai in that room”.
Shortly after this, Li Ho-yin, Wong Yuk-wai and Ng Ka-lun were also found and arrested in Room 7 of the Ocean Wifi Hotel. Tang told the police that he was employed by Ng Ka-lun to look after and sell the ketamine. He would receive orders by telephone, after which he would package the quantities requested and sell them. Traces of cocaine and ketamine were detected on his hands.
The ketamine in Counts 1 and 2 had a street value of in excess of $337,000.
Tang’s attempt to alert the others led the police party to Room 7 of the Ocean Wifi Hotel. After Tang had shouted, police officers noticed a male opening the door to Room 7. The officers also noticed that inside that room, there appeared to be a number of transparent resealable plastic bags which appeared to contain dangerous drugs.
They attempted to enter the room. They were confronted by several males. One of the men from inside that room managed to escape immediately during the course of the confrontation. He was thereafter followed shortly by two others. One of the persons who tried to escape was Ng Ka-lun. He was arrested shortly after he had run from the room.
Once the police officers had entered Room 7 of the Ocean Wifi Hotel, they there arrested Li Ho-yin and Wong Yuk-wai. Inside this room, the police found a large quantity of the dangerous drug ketamine together with packaging paraphernalia which was openly placed in the room and on the bed. Apart from the dangerous drugs, there were electronic scales, ziplock transparent resealable plastic bags and the remains of three stereo loudspeakers and their packaging.
They were all arrested for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The total quantity of ketamine found was 9,957 grammes of a mixture containing 1,777.13 grammes of ketamine. These drugs had a street value of in excess of HK$2,700,000.
Subsequent to his arrest, Wong Yuk-wai told the police that it was Ah Yuen, that is Kwan Chun-yuen, who had asked him to bring the stereo loudspeakers to Room 7 and that it was Ah Lun who opened them.
It emerged in the trial of Li Ho-yin that the stereo loudspeakers had concealed within them ketamine which was then removed and repackaged in Room 7. In the case of Wong Yuk-wai and Ng Ka-lun, traces of ketamine were found on their hands upon analysis.
Li Ho-yin, Wong Yuk-wai and Ng Ka-lun were each charged with trafficking in the ketamine found in Room 7. Wong Yuk-wai and Ng Ka-lun pleaded guilty at the Magistrates’ Court and were remanded to this court for sentence, and Li Ho-yin was acquitted after trial.
The Summary of Facts in respect of Wong Yuk-wai and Ng Ka-lun confirms their acceptance that they were trafficking in these drugs on that occasion.
Kwan Chun-yuen. On the afternoon of 15 October 2016, as the police party entered the Ocean Wifi Hotel, Kwan was seen to be sitting on a sofa in the lobby of that hotel. When Tang was detained by the police, he left abruptly.
During the course of the afternoon and after the arrest of Tang and the others in Room 7, Kwan was seen to have returned to the Ocean Wifi Hotel. As he was approached by police officers, he made to flee, but he was detained. He explained to the officers that he had returned to the hotel to locate his girlfriend who had been asleep in Room 2.
After he was arrested, he admitted that he had been employed by Ng Ka-lun to sell dangerous drugs. More particularly, he admitted that he and Tang worked for Ng Ka-lun, distributing ketamine earning daily $1,000 to $1,300. He was aware that both Room 2 and Room 7 of the Ocean Wifi Hotel were used for the packaging of dangerous drugs and he knew that the large plastic bags in Room 7 of the Ocean Wifi Hotel contained ketamine.
He also knew that the dangerous drug ketamine had been taken into Room 2 of the Ocean Wifi Hotel for packaging. His DNA was found in both Rooms 2 and 7 and traces of ketamine were found on his hands upon analysis. He accepted in the Summary of Facts that at the material time, together with Ng Ka-lun, he was in possession of the drugs in both rooms, 2 and 7, for the purposes of unlawful trafficking.
The total quantity of ketamine in the case of this defendant is 11,183 grammes of a powder containing 1,919 grammes of ketamine with an agreed street value in excess of HK$3 million.
In respect of each of the defendants, I have been provided with and have read antecedent statements and matters in mitigation.
Tang Kwok-wai is now aged 20 and was previously employed as a storeman. He was educated up to Form 4 level and he is not a person who is drug-addicted. A written submission on his behalf has been provided to me, together with supporting letters.
It suffices to say that the cumulative effect of that material is to indicate that this -- the indication is that the circumstances of the defendant have brought considerable distress to his family. That is unfortunately the consequence of young persons becoming involved in offences of this nature.
In the plea and mitigation, counsel on his behalf have advanced the fact that he has no previous convictions. He was very young at the time of the offence; he was 18 years of age. And it would appear that the primary reason for becoming involved was the obtaining of quick and easy money.
It was suggested that this was, in fact, the first day he had taken part in the activities.
As far as sentencing is concerned, given the quantity of drugs, I am satisfied, bearing in mind the authorities, that a starting point after trial for this quantity of ketamine would be one of 7 years’ imprisonment.
He has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court and has been remanded in custody since that time. By reason of the advice of the Court of Appeal, he is entitled to a full one-third discount from that starting point.
My calculation therefore is that his sentence would be one, in respect of Count 2, of 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
In respect of Count 1, the amount of drugs involved was minimal. Nevertheless, he possessed those drugs for the purposes of trafficking. It would be irresponsible of me not to impose a term of imprisonment for that offence. I believe the appropriate starting point is one of 6 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 4 months by reason of his plea of guilty.
Considering the totality principle, I think it would be proper to order that the sentence on Count 1 be concurrent to the sentence on Count 2. I do this because if one were to add together the quantities in Count 1 and Count 2, there would be no change whatsoever in the starting point for sentence.
I come now to Wong Yuk-wai. The antecedent statement provided in respect of Wong Yuk-wai indicates that he is now aged 22 and at the time of the offence was 20. He has a clear record and has been educated up to Form 3 level.
He comes from, as is apparent in the written mitigation, a family of successful and obviously concerned -- he comes from a successful and obviously concerned family. Whilst he left school at Form 3 level, he has engaged in some vocational training since that time and at about the time of his arrest was allegedly employed as a construction site worker, earning something in the order of $20,000 per month.
The quantity of drugs insofar as Wong Yuk-wai is concerned, is very considerable. He and Ng Ka-lun have pleaded guilty to those drugs which were found in Room 7 of the Ocean Wifi Hotel. As I have said earlier, those drugs were something of the order of 9,957.9 grammes of a mixture containing 1,777 grammes of ketamine. They have a street value in excess of $2.7 million.
I have to determine what is the appropriate starting point for sentence in respect of Wong Yuk-wai and Ng Ka-lun. Having looked at the authorities, I am satisfied that that starting point is one of 17 years’ imprisonment after trial.
I have been referred to HKSAR v Chan Ka Yu CACC 147 of 2016 and Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng which is reported at 2009 1 HKLRD. I do not consider that the consequences of the Court of Appeal decision in Chan Ka Yu is to grant to me a discretion to reduce what would otherwise be an appropriate starting point by way of an extrapolation from Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng.
I think it would be irresponsible of me to not have full regard to the weight of the drugs that are involved. Giving full weight to that, the starting point for sentence after trial in my opinion must be one of 17 years’ imprisonment.
Coming back then to what is the appropriate discount in the case of each of these defendants, both of them pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court and are obviously entitled to a full one-third discount.
In the case of Wong Yuk-wai, he provided a statement to the police and ultimately gave evidence in the trial of Li Ho-yin. The Court of Final Appeal in Z v HKSAR [2007] 10 HKCFAR 183 said as follows, and I refer to the headnote:
“It was the policy of the courts to take into account in mitigation of sentence useful assistance the defendant has given to the authorities and to give an appropriate reduction from sentence.”
As I have said, he has given a statement and evidence in the trial of Li Ho-yin. The fact that Li Ho-yin was acquitted in my opinion does not detract from the fact that he is entitled to a discount by reason of that. I am satisfied that the appropriate discount from the starting point of 17 years would be one of 45 per cent. That is a full one-third discount for his plea of guilty and the balance by reason of his assistance to the authorities.
My calculation then is that the sentence to be imposed is one of 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
I come now to Ng Ka-lun. Like the others, he pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court. It is the same charge as Wong Yuk-wai, the ketamine found in Room 7 of the Ocean Wifi Hotel. He is by far the most mature of all of the defendants, being now aged 26.
Unlike the others, he does not have a clear record. He was convicted in August of 2012 of an offence of attempted robbery and sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment. He was also sentenced to a term of 3 months and 20 days for an offence of falsely pretending to be a public officer. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrent.
He has been educated to Form 5 level and he claimed, at the time of his arrest, to be a decoration worker.
I have indicated that the appropriate starting point for sentence of this defendant is the same as that of Wong Yuk-wai, namely a starting point of 17 years. A full one-third discount to reflect his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity would result in a sentence of 11 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, and that is the sentence that I impose.
Finally, I deal with Kwan Chun-yuen. Kwan Chun-yuen also pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He did so to a charge which contained in its particulars the total quantities of ketamine found in both Rooms 2 and 7 of the Ocean Wifi Hotel. That was then a total quantity of 11,183.66 grammes of a mixture containing 1,919.13 grammes of ketamine, a huge amount of dangerous drugs by any calculation, with an estimated street value in excess of HK$3 million.
He is now aged 20, educated to Form 3 level and has no prior convictions. At the time of the offences, he was unemployed. As with the others, whom I have already referred to, the circumstances of this defendant have had a significant impact on him, and no doubt, his contemporaries.
This defendant, I am told, has had a very unhappy background and had been in foster care for many years prior to his reaching maturity. Nevertheless, his committing these offences at this time is, with the greatest respect, not a consequence of his background, but more directly a consequence of his, as like the others, greed in wishing to make quick money.
It is very unfortunate in the circumstances of all of these defendants that that seems to be their motivation. None of them, it would seem, have themselves any involvement with dangerous drugs beyond being involved at a commercial level.
In respect of this defendant, I take the view, having considered the authorities, that the appropriate starting point after trial is one of 18 years’ imprisonment. He is entitled to a full one-third discount to reflect his early plea of guilty.
In addition, he has provided a statement to the police and offered to give evidence in the trial of his co-accused, Li Ho-yin. As it transpired, a decision was made not to call him as a witness, albeit that that had been the prosecution’s earlier intention.
In those circumstances, I believe that he is still entitled to a discount to reflect his willingness to assist and to cooperate. I assess that, in conjunction with the discount for his plea of guilty, to give a total discount of 40 per cent from the starting point of 18 years.
That brings me to a sentence then of 10 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
That is the sentence that I will impose.
COURT: Just before we leave this then, for the avoidance of any doubt, I will read out the sentences again.