HKSAR v. Wong Wah Ching

DCCC 1308 /2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1308 OF 2011

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Trafficking in a dangerous drug". The dangerous drug involved is heroin.

2.About 3:30 pm on 11 October 2011, PC 10454 (PW1) and PC 1643 (PW2) were patrolling in a building situated at No.304 Un Chau Street, Sham Shui Po.  At the staircase between 2/F and 3/F, PW1 saw the defendant exiting from a flat on 3/F ("the Flat").  Suddenly, the defendant turned around, returned to the Flat and attempted to close the door. PW1 struggled to keep the door open whilst the defendant attempted to close it.  PW1 revealed his police identity and soon the defendant's resistance subsided.  PW1 and PW2 managed to gain entry into the Flat.

3.The defendant was the only person in the Flat.  On a table in the sitting room, PW1 found a transparent resealable plastic bag containing a piece of paper and some white powder (Exhibit 1).

4.Inside the shoulder bag carrying by the defendant, PW1 found: (1) a transparent resealable plastic bag containing 52 tablets of suspected dangerous drugs (each wrapped in white plastic paper) and 1 tablet of suspected dangerous drug wrapped in red plastic paper (collectively "the 53 tablets"); (2) a transparent resealable plastic bag containing: (i) a transparent resealable plastic bag containing 1 tablet of suspected dangerous drugs wrapped in white plastic paper (Exhibit 3A); and (ii) a transparent resealable plastic bag containing 2 tablets of suspected dangerous drugs each wrapped in white plastic paper (Exhibit 3B).

5.PW1 arrested and cautioned the defendant for "Trafficking in dangerous drugs".  Under caution, the defendant claimed that the drugs were for his own consumption.  A house search was then conducted in the Flat.  PW1 found a black bag containing 2 digital scales and a transparent resealable plastic bag containing 63 small transparent resealable plastic bags.

6.In a cautioned interview conducted in the same evening, the defendant admitted that all the white powder found by PW1 in the Flat is heroin, which was for his own consumption.  He purchased the heroin (originally contained in 1 packet) in that morning at the methadone clinic situated at Yee Kuk Street.  He then packaged the heroin in tablet size, but had not yet finished doing so before being arrested, thus leaving Exhibit 1 on the table. The defendant claimed that the heroin he purchased could be repackaged into roughly 80 tablets.  Also, the digital scales were for weighing the heroin, and the small transparent resealable plastic bags were for holding the heroin tablets.  

7.A Government Chemist subsequently confirmed that Exhibits 1, 3A, 3B and the 53 tablets contained a total of 14.36 grammes of a mixture containing 11.26 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

8.The defendant now admits that he possessed the heroin found in the Flat for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

9.The defendant is now 53 years old.  He has 2 previous convictions, one of which is "simple possession" dating back in 2000.  He has never been to prison, except DATC twice (1986 and 1992 respectively). 

10.The defendant has nothing to say in mitigation, except asking for leniency.  The defendant is married with 2 adult sons (both are working).  Prior to the present offence, he worked as a driver on a casual basis.  The defendant claims to be a drug addict.

11.A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that "drug trafficking" is a serious crime and that drug traffickers would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment. The sentencing tariff for trafficking in heroin is laid down in The Queen v LAU Tak-ming & others [1990] 2 HKLR 370.  For 10 to 50 grammes, the sentence ranges from 5 to 8 years' imprisonment.

12.A total of 11.26 grammes of heroin are involved in this case.  Hence, I adopt a starting point of 5 years.  One-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 40 months.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further discount.  The sentence I impose is therefore 40 months (3 years and 4 months).