HKSAR v. Fong Chun Wa

DCCC242/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 242 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The particulars of the offence are that on 23 December in 2009, at a premises called “Computer Care” in Shantung Street, Mongkok, the defendant trafficked in 9.47 grammes of ketamine.

2.The facts admitted by the defendant are that at 4.34 pm, on 23 December 2009, the police executed a search warrant at the premises referred to in the charge, Computer Care, which is at Shop 316 Sim City in Mongkok. The defendant is the proprietor of the premises and has been since June of 2007. He was found there together with his employee, Mr Chan, and a friend. The defendant gave the police a key from his left trouser pocket. This key opened the door of a cabinet, and inside that cabinet was found the drugs the subject of the charge.

3.In addition to the drugs, the police recovered an electronic scale, $950 in cash, and on top of the cabinet there were two packs of empty plastic bags. When he was arrested and cautioned for the offence of trafficking the defendant said, “Ah Sir, the shop’s business is poor. He sells the drugs to subsidise the company’s expenses.”

4.In a subsequent cautioned video interview the defendant further admitted that he had used $2,000 to purchase drugs on 20 December. He used the electronic scales to weigh and re-pack the drugs into smaller packets, and he sold some packets to three customers on the day of his arrest and the day before. He said that the money that was recovered from the cabinet was the proceeds of those sales.

5.The defendant has a clear record. I am told that he is 25 years of age, and he was educated to Form 4 level. He is living with his girlfriend in a public housing estate, and he has a three-year old daughter. He worked as a computer technician after finishing school, and subsequently he went on to rent a shop carrying out repairs to computers. I am told that on good months the business earns some $50,000 to $60,000 per month. Both his parents are employed. I am told that when business is doing well he contributes $4,000 a month to their finances. I am told that he has two sisters, and it is a harmonious family. I am told that the defendant was married at an early age, and he was divorced in 2009. His ex-wife is at university, and he contributes to the upkeep of her and the daughter to the sum of $4,000 per month. I am told that he spends one weekend per month looking after his daughter.

6.I am told that he set up his business in 2007. He has one employee, Mr Chan, who has become a close friend. He is paid a salary of $10,000 per month. I am told that this is slightly over the usual rate for pay, which is about $8,000 per month. I am told that the reason for the commission of the offence was that his business was going through a difficult period. In October 2009 there was a significant downturn in his business due to the fact that he previously over-stocked with parts which were not selling, and he was having fewer customers. I am told that he could not even break even and had to rely on his savings. I am told that he was unwilling to lay off his employee Mr Chan because he had his own problems. He had a sick father. I was told that it was in those circumstances, out of stupidity and desperation, that the defendant decided to buy and sell drugs. I was told that this was a reckless attempt to relieve his financial pressure.

7.Two letters have been placed before the court, one from the defendant himself and one from his sister. His sister describes the defendant as a responsible, kind-hearted and hard working person. She asks for leniency. The defendant, in his letter, repeats much of what has been urged upon the court in mitigation. I am told that he is determined to start afresh and to be a more responsible person. It was urged upon me that the defendant cooperated with the police, he explained fully his involvement in trafficking, and he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

8.As the defendant will know, offences of this kind are treated very seriously by the court. Sales of drugs, and particularly ketamine, are a major problem in Hong Kong, especially involving younger people. The sentencing guidelines for trafficking in between 1 and 10 grammes of ketamine is a sentence of 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment. The defendant trafficked in 9.47 grammes of ketamine, the starting point is 4 years’ imprisonment.

9.I have considered very carefully all the mitigation that has been placed before the court and the excellent plea made by defence counsel. In all the circumstances, I have decided to take a starting point in this case of 3½ years and reduce that sentence by one-third to reflect the guilty plea. The defendant will therefore go to prison for 28 months, that is 2 years and 4 months.