HKSAR v. Wong Ka Chun

HCCC 474/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 474 OF 2014

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

The defendant was observed to have entered a lift in a building. Officers followed him into the lift and he was stopped when he got off the lift. A search was conducted and it was found that he was carrying a total of 40, 4-0, plastic packets in his rucksack and travel bag. Under caution, he said he was delivering the ketamine in return for $500.

A search of his residence revealed paraphernalia relating to packaging and trafficking which included an electronic scale, some resealable plastic bags and two plastic spoons. He claimed that those did not belong to him and he kept those items there for another person.

Upon analysis, the drugs were found to be 9.94 kilogrammes of a powder containing 8.33 kilogrammes of ketamine. The estimate street value of the drugs was in the region of HK$1.2 million.

The defendant is now aged 16, of a clear record. By way of mitigation, I’m told that the defendant, being the only child of his parents, was led astray by his undesirable peers and committed the present offence because he owed some money to others and had no means to repay. Counsel described him as stupid and naïve, whilst his parents, in their mitigation letters, describe him as simpleminded and easily persuaded by others.

In sentencing the defendant, I have taken into account the facts of the present case, the drugs involved and the tariff and various authorities. I have also perused the mitigation bundle compiled by the defence which consists of letters of mitigation written by the defendant himself, his parents and relatives and his teachers and social worker, as well as various certificates of achievements.

However, I must say at the outset that these constitute little mitigation further than that attracted by his guilty plea. And counsel has quite sensibly conceded that the defendant, being 16, cannot plead extreme youth.

According to the case of Hii Siew Cheng, for trafficking in ketamine weighing more than 1 kilogramme, the starting point is over 14 years. Further, according to Sin Chung Kin, it was held that the appropriate starting point for trafficking in 2,000 grammes and 3,000 grammes of ketamine should be no less than 18 and 20 years’ imprisonment. That case involved 5.12 kilogrammes of ketamine and it was held that a starting point of 22 years adopted by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive. The case of Hii Siew Cheng involved 2.89 kilogrammes of ketamine. The Court of Appeal approved of the 19 years and 9 months’ starting point.

For trafficking cases, the most significant factor in sentencing is undoubtedly the narcotics involved and the greatest mitigation is the defendant’s timely plea.

The present case involves a very large amount of ketamine, 8.33 kilogrammes of narcotics, way higher than Sin Chung Kin and Hii Siew Cheng. I adopt a starting point of 24 years’ imprisonment and give the defendant one-third discount for his guilty plea.

He is sentenced to 16 years accordingly.