HKSAR v. Wong Tsz Wai

HCCC 296/2025

[2025] HKCFI 6140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 296 OF 2025

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: On 4 September this year, the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed by the magistrate to the Court of First Instance for sentence. It is alleged that on the 5th day of February 2024, at the ground floor lift lobby of Chun Sze House, Chun Yeung Estate in Sha Tin, he unlawfully trafficked in 47.5 grammes of a solid containing 42.1 grammes of cocaine.

According to the Summary of Facts which he admitted at the time of his guilty plea, on 5 February 2024 at about 8.38 pm, he was intercepted by the police at the ground floor lift lobby of Chun Sze House. Upon search, in the right pocket of his jacket the police found one brown envelope containing two plastic bags of cocaine as particularised in the charge. Two mobile phones and cash of $2,000 were also found on his person.

Upon his arrest for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, he stated under caution that the drug found on him belonged to him. It was dangerous drug and it belonged to him. Since he was in need of money, he received $1,000 each day to deliver the dangerous drug to others.

The street value of the drug seized from his person was HK$47,168 if it was in the form of cocaine powder, and HK$64,743 if it was in the form of crack cocaine.

He admitted that on 5 February 2024, he unlawfully trafficked in the said dangerous drug.

The defendant was 18 years old at the time when he committed the offence and he is now 19 years of age. He has received secondary school education in Hong Kong. At the time of his arrest, he worked as an apprentice chef earning about $18,000 per month. I must say for a young man of his age, that was a relatively high income already.

Despite his young age, he is a person with some previous criminal convictions. On 15 February 2022, when he was still at the age of 16, he was already convicted of one charge of trafficking in dangerous drug and sentenced to the training centre. After his arrest for the present offence, on 9 April 2024 he was bounded over and ordered to pay costs in respect of two matters of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but those two matters were not treated as criminal convictions.

I was informed by the prosecution that indeed, at the time when he committed the present offence, he was being released on court bail for those two AOABH matters respectively. In addition to that, he was sentenced to the training centre for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drug at the age of 16. He was just discharged from the training centre shortly before the offence was committed in the present case, and was still under the CSD supervision between 12 June 2023 and 11 June 2026 at the material time.

In mitigation, counsel Ms Remedios informed me that he was at the material time living together with his family members at a public housing unit and he was in gainful employment as an apprentice chef earning around $18,000 per month. Counsel urged me to take into account the role that he was simply a courier in this case.

The defendant himself had also written a letter to plead for leniency. In that letter, he said that he had reflected deeply and felt profound remorse about this case which was committed out of momentary greed. He said he had proactively participated in a number of courses whilst in custody in order to better equip himself, and he asked this court to give him one more opportunity to reform and start afresh.

Counsel also rightly accepted the fact that committing the present offence at the time when he was on court bail for other matters can be regarded as an aggravating factor.

On the other hand, counsel urged this court to take into account his very young age, that he was at the age of 18 years old at the time of the offence.

In sentencing the defendant, I do bear in mind the approach set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and modified by the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186. According to the revised guidelines in the recent case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the starting point for trafficking in between 10 to 50 grammes of cocaine narcotic would be 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment. So the mathematical starting point for trafficking in 42.1 grammes of cocaine narcotic would be 7 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

The mathematical starting point is appropriate for persons at the lower bottom of the trafficking hierarchy such as storekeepers and couriers. In this case, I accept counsel’s submission that the role of the defendant was merely that of a courier. As such, the starting point to be adopted after consideration of his role and culpability should be one of 7 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

However, in respect of his personal circumstances, it is clear that the present offence was committed whilst he was on court bail for two other matters, two AOABH offences. The commission of an offence whilst a person is on bail in respect of another offence is a serious aggravating factor in the commission of the offence, and a judge may reflect this in enhancing the starting point for sentence.

Bearing in mind the fact that he had already been convicted of the offence of trafficking in dangerous drug at the age of 16, that he had only been discharged from the training centre less than 8 months at the time when the present offence was committed, and it was committed also whilst he was under the CSD supervision period after his discharge from the training centre, I consider that his conduct in engaging in trafficking in dangerous drug again demonstrates, in terms of the offence, a serious disregard of the law, and in terms of the defendant himself, it evidences a persistence in offending. As such, I see fit to enhance the starting point by that of 6 months.

So the overall starting point to be adopted would be 7 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.

In respect of the mitigating factors, of course he pleaded guilty at an early stage and is entitled to the full one-third discount. I do not consider that his age of 18 years can be regarded as a person of extreme youth, especially in view of the fact that he was already convicted of one charge of trafficking in dangerous drug at the age of 16, so he should be fully aware of the consequence of his criminal act. In all the circumstances, I am not going to grant any further discount for his age of 18 at the time of the offence.

So the only discount that he would receive is the full one‑third discount for his plea of guilty at an early stage. As such, I will sentence him to 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.