HKSAR v. Wong Yuk Ping and Another
|
HCCC141/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO. 141 OF 2009 ----------------------
---------------------- Before: The Honourable Mr Justice Tong Date: 24 June 2009 at 9.37 am
Offence: Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) ----------------------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording ----------------------------------------------- COURT: The two defendants are charged respectively with two separate offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The 1st charge is against Miss Wong, D1, for a total amount of 1,415-odd grammes of what is commonly known as “Ice”. The 2nd charge is against Miss Pang, D2, for a total amount of 1,428-odd grammes of Ice. Both defendants pleaded guilty to the respective charge and admitted the facts. Put simply, what had happened was that the two defendants were intercepted by the police in the departure gate of the Hong Kong Airport, and upon a bodily search the drugs were found on their bodies. At that time the defendants were about to travel to Japan. Both defendants admitted to the police that they were taking the drugs with the view to earn some money. They had provided cooperatively more details regarding their involvement later in the interviews conducted by the police. They disclosed that they were given the drugs in Shenzhen, and then they proceeded to the Hong Kong Airport having joined the group tour to Japan. D1 is 30 years of age, married, and D2 is now 32. They both had a clear criminal record prior to this incident. Counsel for the two defendants has prepared and submitted detailed written mitigations for the defendants. I am grateful for their assistance. Counsel for D1 reminded the court that D1 has a very close relationship with her father, who is now 71 years of age. Her mother had abandoned her when she was small. It was said that D1 was out of job at the material time, and she was approached by Ah Kan, asking her to deliver the drugs, promising 70,000 as a reward. But D1 had not received any part of the money. It was also said that the defendant was otherwise a good person, who has often participated in charitable activities. Counsel for D2 pointed out that D2 had become a prisoner of her credit card debts since 2001, and was indebted to a finance company for a large sum of money. She had even applied for bankruptcy in February 2009. Counsel said that her financial difficulties had actually caused her to develop symptoms of depression, which was serious enough to require psychiatric attention. Counsel emphasised that D2 had always been in gainful employment and had contributed regularly to maintain her family. Counsel further said that the present arrangement could be a trap, and D2 was foolishly being used. Counsel informed the court that the defendant had just had a hip replacement operation in 2008. Both defendants have submitted letters written by themselves and letters written on their behalf by their family members, relatives and friends, telling the court of their positive impression of the defendants. It is rather unfortunate that these two defendants, who had been law-abiding citizens before, became involved in drug trafficking and with such large amounts. I do not doubt that they are now remorseful, but it is obvious that the circumstances of the present case are very serious, not just because of the amounts, but the fact that they were involved in a scheme in which drugs were being transported from the mainland in directly to Japan. This will clearly harm the reputation of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong cannot be allowed to become the hub of international drug trafficking. The case authorities which established the tariff for Ice trafficking is obviously Ching Kwok Hung. But the present amount is above the upper limit of the 600 grammes, hence this court has to make its own assessment regarding the starting point. Having reviewed the authorities referred to by Mr Wong, I believe the appropriate starting point for each of the two charges is 21 years. In view of the defendants’ guilty pleas, I shall reduce the sentences by one-third, so the 21 years becomes 14. Although it has been said time and again by the Court of Appeal that personal circumstances would not count much in this sort of very serious offence, in view of the circumstances and what has been urged upon this court, I am prepared - as it is their first and a long sentence - to reduce the term by 6 months each. Hence the sentence of D1, 13½ years. The sentence of D2 is also 13½ years. |