HKSAR v. Wong Tsam Yin
|
HCCC77/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO. 77 OF 2010 -----------------
-----------------
--------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording --------------------------------- COURT: You pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs and you were committed for sentence here to the Court of First Instance. The facts that you admitted showed that on 13 November 2009, you left a flat in Sham Shui Po with another person, a female; you were intercepted by police officers and you were searched. In a bag that you were carrying, there were two packets of dangerous drugs which amounted to 20.5 grammes of ketamine in a larger mixture. There was then a search of the flat from which you had emerged and a bundle of resealable plastic bags, an electronic scale and a further quantity of dangerous drugs, namely ketamine, was found. That quantity was 144.11 grammes in a larger mixture. This was obviously a distribution centre for ketamine. Indeed, when you were interviewed in respect of this matter, you admitted as much, namely, that you had been recruited by somebody at a disco to deliver drugs and that you would be paid $600 per day as a salary for delivering drugs, and that the scales and a spoon which was also found would be used to package the drugs. That was the purpose in which you were engaged both at the flat and at the time that you were intercepted. The total quantity of dangerous drugs in which you were engaged in trafficking is 164.16 grammes, valued at the time at around about $25,000 in terms of its street value. I am sure you have been told - I know you have been told, indeed - that sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs is based primarily on the narcotic quantity of the drugs which is the subject of the trafficking because that results in an approach to sentence which is the same for all offenders. Therefore, that figure of 164 grammes of ketamine is the relevant figure so far as your case is concerned. The Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines for different types of drugs as to the approach that should be taken for sentence. I say the 164 grammes is relevant to your case because it is necessary to look at the two charges together. Although there were two packets of drugs in your bag, one quantity of drugs in your bag, and a further quantity of drugs in the flat which you agreed you were engaged in trafficking, this was, overall, one act of trafficking in dangerous drugs. What was in the bag was part of the stock that was in the flat; they were the same source. So that figure of 164 grammes is the relevant figure. So far as ketamine is concerned, the Court of Appeal in the case called Hii Siew Cheng has laid down the appropriate guidelines and your case falls into the bracket which covers cases of trafficking in 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine for which 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment is prescribed. This is not a mathematical calculation. It needs also to take into account the circumstances of the case and the circumstances of the offender. For instance, it is plain that you were some way up the chain of distribution. You were taking the drugs from that stock to which I have referred and distributing them from there, weighing the drugs out and delivering it to customers. At the time that you committed these offences, you were 18 years of age; you are now 19. You were, you said, and I am told, drawn into this course of grave offending by others with the promises of easy money. You have no previous convictions and you are, it is submitted, to be regarded more as foolish than wicked. The thrust of Mr Cheng’s submissions on your behalf are that you are not fundamentally wicked, that you are seriously misguided. It is submitted that you are a very immature young woman and that, therefore, you were an easy target for persons of perhaps, much greater experience in criminal matters, particularly as you have not settled into any way of life as an adult in terms of employment and have had a somewhat chequered career in education. It is submitted that the court should consider imposing a Training Centre as an alternative to a sentence of imprisonment. I have given consideration to what has been said on your behalf in that respect. I am satisfied, nevertheless, that in all the circumstances of this case, there is no other method of dealing with your case other than by a sentence of imprisonment. Training Centre would give entirely the wrong message to young people tempted, like you, to be drawn into trafficking in ketamine - or indeed any other drug; but ketamine, a drug which is in widespread use amongst young people, it must be known unequivocally, that prison will follow if people allow themselves to be drawn into trafficking in dangerous drugs for easy money, or for any other reason. As I have already indicated, it is appropriate, in my judgment, to take this whole quantity as the appropriate basis for determining the proper starting point for sentence - that is, the quantities in each of the charges together - and then to apply the appropriate discounts for the mitigation that you have, which is your pleas of guilty. That is the primary mitigation, which followed upon your admissions at a very early stage in this case, and takes into account as well the fact that you are a young woman of clear record. I am satisfied that the appropriate starting point overall is a sentence of 6½ years’ imprisonment. That sentence is to be reduced by one-third to reflect the mitigation that is available to you, which reduces the sentence to 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. As it is the sentence for this total amount, that is the sentence that I impose concurrently on each of these charges. (Discussion on sentence calculations) COURT: The sentence after reduction from 6½ years by one-third is 4 years 4 months. That is the sentence that is imposed concurrently on each charge. |