HKSAR v. Woo Ting Fai

Case No.HCCC 159/2010
Court
High Court CFI
Date12 Jul 2010
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC159/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 159 OF 2010

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Woo Ting Fai  

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

Before:

Hon McMahon J

Date:

12 July 2010 at 10.26 am

Present:

Mr P J Power, SADPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Ms Monica Chow Wai-choo, instructed by Messrs Chow, Griffiths & Chan, for the Accused

Offence:

(1) Possession of a dangerous drug ((管有危險藥物)
(2) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)

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

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

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

COURT: The 17-year-old defendant pleaded guilty in Eastern Magistracy to possession of 0.35 grammes of ketamine, Charge 1, and to trafficking in 180.85 grammes of the same drug, Charge 2.

The defendant had been arrested in a shopping centre in Sha Tin during a police anti-narcotics operation. He was found to be carrying the packet of ketamine the subject of Charge 1 in his trouser pocket.

When later taken to his own premises in Sha Tin, the drugs the subject of the second charge were found in a small safe to which the defendant had the keys.

Drug packaging paraphernalia was found in the vicinity of the safe.

In my view, a custodial sentence is necessary. Given the latent risk involved in the circumstances of the defendant’s possession of the drugs the subject of Charge 1 - that is, his possession of the drugs in a public place and his possession in his room of other drugs of the same sort for trafficking - I take a starting point of sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment.

There is no substantial mitigation available to the defendant other than his plea of guilty, for which he receives full credit.

Accordingly, the starting point taken in respect of the Charge 1 offence is reduced to a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment.

Particularly relevant in respect of the Count 2 offence are a number of letters provided to me in mitigation. Those letters were from various individuals - teachers, social workers and others - who knew the defendant.

In my view, given the age of the defendant, he has real prospects for rehabilitation, and my starting point of sentence, albeit within the guidelines in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, is lower than it would otherwise be.

I take a starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment. The only mitigation of substance is the defendant’s plea of guilty, and on that basis, the starting point is reduced to a sentence of 4 years 8 months’ imprisonment.

Given the amount of drugs involved in respect of the first charged offence and the nature of the offence, I order both sentences to be served concurrently.

That is a totality of sentence of 4 years 8 months’ imprisonment.