HKSAR v. Wong Kwok Hang, Tommy

DCCC 1155/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1155 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has been convicted after trial. He has been convicted of two charges, the first being a tenant permitting premises to be used for unlawful trafficking in a dangerous drug; secondly, a conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug, the co‑conspirator being his lodger at the relevant time.

2.I do not intend to repeat the facts again.  I have given full reasons in my verdict.  These convictions are largely successful because of the admissions made by the defendant.  There is to some extent physical evidence that supports the charges.  The defendant admitted that Miss Tsang moved in and after she moved in, he witnessed and witnessed on many occasions her dealing with drugs which led to her trafficking in the same premises.  He condoned her activities in his premises and by his actions permitted her to use the premises for that purpose.  He went on to implicate himself further by saying that at her request, he on occasion helped her deliver drugs and on occasion collected money for the drugs that he delivered.

3.In mitigation, I have heard the defendant is 39 years old, not a man of clear record.  However, the convictions he has relate to possession of dangerous drugs.  They were convictions in 1994 and 2010.  On both occasions, he was fined.  There are obviously no convictions for anything more serious than possession.

4.There are no guidelines for these offences. Obviously, the court must look at each case, each set of facts individually.  I have been referred to two authorities for consideration by the defence and prosecution respectively, those being HKSAR v Suen Wing Lam CACC 49 of 2011 and HKSAR v Ho Wing To CACC264 of 2010.  I also have in mind what the sentencing guidelines for trafficking “Ice” are.

5.Defendant, I take into account the facts of this case, mitigation put forward, your background and what you said to the police in your interviews that led to your convictions.  After considering all those factors, I find for both charges a starting point of 3 years to be appropriate.  I agree with defence counsel that on the facts, both charges should be served concurrently.  These are convictions after trial.  I see no reason for any further discount to that starting point.  Accordingly, for Charges 1 and 2, the defendant is sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment, both to be served concurrently.  That is a total of 3 years’ imprisonment.