HKSAR V Wong Ka Chun
|
DCCC 1097/2023 [2025] HKDC 34 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 1097 OF 2023 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ Plea 1.Upon the defendant’s plea of guilty on two charges, the defendant (“D”) is convicted on the 1st and 2nd charges, namely possession of a dangerous drug and trafficking in a dangerous drug. Admitted facts 2.At about 5:10 pm on 11 May 2023, SGT4458 spotted a vehicle bearing registration mark UG8525 (the ‘Vehicle”) parked on Tak Hing Street, Tsim Sha Tsui. At the time, a male person was seated on the driver’s seat in the Vehicle. A few minutes later, another male person boarded the Vehicle. The said male person sat on the front passenger’s seat and shut the door of the Vehicle. He then alighted from the Vehicle and left. The Vehicle later left Tak Hing Street and parked outside Nos 126-128 Woosung Street, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon. 3.At about 5:35 pm on the same day, the police intercepted the Vehicle. At the time, D was seated on the driver’s seat of Vehicle. He was the only person on board of the Vehicle. PC25638 requested D to alight from the Vehicle and conducted a search on D. 4.Upon body search, one re-sealable plastic bag containing 0.96 grams of a solid containing 0.83 grams of ketamine (E1) was found inside D’s trouser pocket. Under caution for “possession of a dangerous drug”, D admitted that E1 was for self-consumption. 5.Furthermore, one mobile phone and cash of HK$18,760 were found on D. 6.The police then searched the Vehicle in the presence of D. Upon search, the following items were found hidden under the gear lever:
7.Under caution for “trafficking in dangerous drugs” in respect of E2-4, D admitted that he trafficked in the drugs in question in order to repay his debts. 8.In the subsequent cautioned video-recorded interview, D admitted, inter alia, he rented the Vehicle since April 2023 and no person other than himself had driven the Vehicle during the said rental period. E1-4 were given to him by “Ming Gor”. “Ming Gor” instructed him to distribute 3 bags of drugs (E2-4) to others. He was in debt and was unemployed at the material time. 9.The Government Chemist subsequently confirmed the narcotic contents of E1-4. At the time of the offence, the estimated street value of E1-4 was HK$31,522.02. 10.At all material times, D was in possession of E1 and he trafficked in E2-4 together with a person known as “Ming Gor”. Defendant’s background and criminal record 11.The defendant is now 28 years of age, single and has received education up to Form 3 secondary level. He has a clear record. 12.In mitigation, Mr Leung, counsel for D, stressed that D is remorseful for the offence. He committed the offence out of financial difficulty. Mr Leung cited the well known case of Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. I have borne that in mind in sentencing. Sentencing consideration Charge 1: Possession of a dangerous drug 13.According to the Court of Appeal cases, for simple possession of dangerous drugs, it may lead to 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment[1]. Charge 1 involves narcotic contents of 0.83 grams of ketamine. Given its relatively lesser quantity, I will adopt 6 months’ imprisonment as the starting point, which is further reduced to 4 months’ imprisonment in the light of his early guilty plea and clear record. Charge 2: Trafficking in a dangerous drug 14.Charge 2 is more serious in that trafficking in a dangerous drug is no doubt more culpable in nature, as courier or trafficker caused more harm to society and the addicts’ family. Financial difficulty can hardly be accepted as mitigating factor. Charge 2 involves 58.2 grams of ketamine. According to the cases of Secretary for Justice and Hii Siew Cheng CAAR 7/2006, trafficking in ketamine with narcotic contents of 58.2 grams of ketamine will result in 72 months’ imprisonment, which is reduced to 48 months’ imprisonment in the light of his guilty plea and clear record. 15.Having regard to the principle of totality and to avoid the overall sentence being excessive, I order that the sentence for Charge 1 be made concurrent with that of Charge 2, the final sentence is 48 months’ imprisonment.
|
Cases cited in this judgment