HKSAR v. Wong Ka Ming
|
HCCC 319/2025 [2026] HKCFI 4948 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 319 OF 2025 -----------------
------------------
--------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording --------------------------------- COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate for two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He is now committed for sentence. On 7 February 2023, at around 2.29 in the morning, the defendant was intercepted by the police when he was approaching a car parked outside Superluck Industrial Centre on Sha Tsui Road, Tsuen Wan. A body search was conducted on the defendant and inside the bag carried by him, 13 plastic bags of drugs were found. The drugs found was later confirmed to be a total of 45.95 grammes of a solid containing 41.75 grammes of cocaine. The defendant’s car was then searched. With the help of the drug detection dog, more drugs were found inside the car contained in plastic bags. And the drugs found include 10.81 grammes of a solid containing 10.11 grammes of cocaine, 24.1 grammes of a solid containing 20.4 grammes of ketamine and 67.93 grammes of cannabis in herbal form. An electronic scale was also found in the car. The defendant is now 35 years old. He was born in the mainland and came to Hong Kong with his mother when he was three to join his father in Hong Kong. Ms Cheng, counsel for the defendant, submitted that the defendant completed his primary education with good results, but when he entered the secondary school, his father applied corporal punishment on him due to his high expectation on the defendant, which resulted in the defendant having to stay at a children’s hostel where he met some delinquent peers and followed them to commit his first offence at the age of 13. Thereafter, he was admitted to boys’ home and detention centre for other offences. He then attended boarding school in Guangzhou and returned to Hong Kong’s traditional education until Form 3. Then he switched to vocational training and graduated from the IVE. After graduation, he worked as a factory worker, delivery attendant and construction worker. But in 2009, as he had separated with his girlfriend, he became very depressed and resorted to using cocaine. At the time of his arrest for the present offence, he was still using cocaine. The defendant has 11 previous criminal convictions, including two trafficking in dangerous drugs, which were committed in 2012 and 2018, for which he was sentenced to 33 months and 50 months respectively. This is the third time he is convicted of the same offence. In a long letter written by the defendant to me, he expressed his remorse towards his misdeeds and pledged to reform himself. He stressed that what he experienced in his childhood had caused him to run to the wrong way, and he explained in some details how he became a habitual offender and the dire consequence his drug addictions had effected on him. Now, he realised that he has got his own child and he wishes that he could be a responsible father. He is determined to turn a new leaf to his life and had undertaken courses by the Hong Kong Metropolitan University during his incarceration. The defendant’s girlfriend, Madam Chan, who described herself as his wife, has also written a letter to me, telling me that the defendant has now changed a lot and she believed that the defendant will not commit any offence again. She asked this court to pass the defendant a lenient sentence so as to allow him to fulfil his responsibility as a good husband and father. Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence. A person convicted of this offence will inevitably face an imprisonment sentence. The heavy sentence is for the purpose of general deterrence and therefore individual circumstances will not be valid mitigating factors. The length of sentence depends heavily on the type and quantity of all drugs trafficked. In consideration of sentence, this court should follow the six-step approach set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph, [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and follow the guidelines in respect of the quantities involved for different drugs. For the present case, in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, and also HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329. As submitted by Ms Cheng, the two offences in this matter are closely connected and are suitable to be dealt with by adopting a global approach. Charge 2 involved three different kinds of drugs. Ms Cheng has set out in her written submission the proper starting point of sentence arrived at by adopting the relevant guidelines in respect of the different drugs involved. As submitted by Ms Cheng, following the recent Court of Appeal case HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885, it would be sufficient to cross-check the result by way of the “Ratio Test” only. According to her calculation, the “Ratio Test” shows that it is more appropriate to cast aside the amount of cannabis in calculation in order to achieve a more realistic result. I am not minded to set out in detail the calculations done by Ms Cheng suffice to say is that I agree with Ms Cheng that by applying the “Ratio Test” only to cocaine and ketamine, then adding on it with a short sentence corresponding to the amount of cannabis involved seems to be the fairest approach. And by so doing, I am of the view that the appropriate overall starting point should be 96 months’ imprisonment. Regarding the role of the defendant, there is nothing to suggest that his role is more than a mere courier. This is the third time the defendant committed the same offence, and I consider it an aggravating factor. The defendant has explained in his letter the circumstances under which he committed the offences, but I do not view that they are valid reasons sufficient to persuade me not to enhance his sentence for his repeated commission of the offence. For this factor, I would enhance the sentence by 4 months’ imprisonment. There are different kinds of drugs involved in this matter. This is an aggravating factor. And for this, I would impose an enhancement of 2 months’ imprisonment. In the circumstances, for the two charges, I adopt a starting point of 102 months’ imprisonment, which is 8 years and 6 months. The defendant has pleaded guilty and showed his remorse, a one-third discount will be given for his guilty plea. The defendant is therefore sentenced to 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for each charge and the sentence of the two charges shall run wholly concurrently.
|
