HKSAR V Wong So Kuen
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 772/2022 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 28 August 2023.
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs that: -
Cites 3 cases
|
DCCC 772/2022 [2023] HKDC 1187 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 772 OF 2022 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs that: -
Summary of facts 2.At about 0030 hours on 23 April 2022, the police conducted a roadblock operation outside No 8 Dundas Street, Mong Kok. 3.At about 0040 hours, PW1 stopped a taxi and he saw the defendant was sitting alone on the right rear passenger seat. The defendant was trembling and clutching a recycle bag on her shoulder to herself. 4.The taxi was directed to the search area. 5.PW1 opened the left rear door of the taxi and saw that the defendant was stepping on a transparent plastic bag containing something wrapped in a piece of magazine paper with her left foot. The defendant attempted to conceal the plastic bag by moving her body and swinging the recycle bag. PW1 then requested the defendant to get off the taxi for enquiry. 6.In a green purse inside the recycle bag, 3 transparent re-sealable plastic bags containing a total of 0.09 grammes of a crystalline solid containing ‘ice’ (“Exhibit 1”) were found. 7.The magazine paper wrapping was found to contain one transparent re-sealable plastic bag containing 100 smaller transparent re-sealable plastic bags containing a total of 15.7 grammes of a solid containing 12.9 grammes of cocaine (“Exhibit 2”). 8.The taxi driver confirmed that he picked up the defendant outside No. 83 Argyle Street at about 0030 hours, he had checked that no belongings were left behind by previous passengers. 9.PW2 conducted a body search on the defendant in Mong Kok Police Station and found the following items: -
10.In a video-recorded interview, the defendant stated that: -
11.The estimated street value of Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 seized were HK$51 and HK$25,999 respectively. Criminal record 12.The defendant has 4 court appearances between 2004 to 2018 with 4 counts of possession of dangerous drugs and one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2018. Background and Mitigation 13.The defendant is now 54 years of age and she was born in Sichuan. She married in 1992, however, her husband left her to settle in the States. The defendant came to Hong Kong and met her ex-boyfriend. He also left her when she was pregnant. Her daughter is now 18 years old. 14.The defendant started to take drugs since 2005. At the end of 2021, she started to take cocaine, but it was too expensive for her, she stopped taking cocaine in early 2022. 15.The defendant said that about 50% of the drugs were for her own consumption. The 0.09 gramme of ice was the remaining portion from her previous purchase. The urine test showed amphetamine positive, but cocaine negative. 16.Before the arrest, the defendant used to earn about $10,000 as a casual worker. At the time of her arrest, she has been unemployed for 1 to 2 weeks, but she has a saving of $15,000. 17.In her mitigating letter, she told me that she comes from a respectful family, her father is a scientist and a university professor. Same as her 2 brothers. Her late mother was an artist. She feels ashamed to have committed the present offence and is remorseful. Sentence 18.In respect of trafficking in cocaine, the sentence guideline can be found: -
19.As to the small quantity of 0.09 grammes of ‘ice’, the defence said that it has no impact on the overall sentence. I agree. Self-consumption 20.The defence said that 50% of the drugs were for her own consumption. 21.The prosecution does not accept such an assertion. 22.When dealing with issue of self-consumption, the sentencing court has to bear in mind of the case of Wong Suet Hau and another CACC 366 & 487/2000 that the defence needs to satisfy the court that the “significant portion” of the drugs was for her self-consumption. 23.The fact that the D was tested positive for amphetamine is neither here nor there. 24.While in HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817 at para 49 said that the significant portion of the drugs were to be consumed by the defendant must be “based on credible and reliable information.” As there is “a real danger of abuse in this avenue of mitigation, ... mere assertions from the bar table, unless agreed or not in dispute, will generally not suffice.” 25.That means the assertion must be confirmed / supported by factual material. 26.The defence informed me that the defendant will not give evidence on the issue of self-consumption. 27.Taking all the factors available before me, I refuse to accept that 50% or any part of the drugs were for her own consumption for the following reasons: -
28.Against this background, I rule that the defendant’s assertion for self-consumption has not made out, she is not entitled to further discount except the 1/3 discount for guilty plea. 29.The defendant is order to serve a sentence of 3 years 8 months.
|
Cases cited in this judgment