HKSAR v. Fong Chun Sing

HCCC 495/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 495 OF 2014

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

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

COURT: Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking, each involving 245 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “Ice”, the total amount of “Ice” involved in the trafficking is therefore 490 grammes. That is the basis upon which I will sentence you.

Briefly, the facts are as follows. On 27 July last year, police officers saw you entering Hing Tin Estate Car Park and approach a car. You opened the driver’s door and you were then approached. In your left hand you carried two drink cartons, each of which contained a plastic bag of suspected dangerous drugs.

Arrested and cautioned, you stated, “I carried these goods for someone”. Later you were taken to your residence, which is Room 3510, Yan Tin House, Hing Tin Court, and a search ensued.

In a drawer police found electronic scales, some plastic bags and a carton box containing a plastic bag of suspected dangerous drugs. Arrested and cautioned, you replied, “Keung Gor told me to hide”.

A search then continued and revealed a further plastic bag containing suspected dangerous drugs at the side of a rubbish bin. Cautioned again you replied, “It’s mine.”

Later analysis showed first of all the dangerous drugs found the car park to be 249 grammes of crystalline solid containing 245 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and the dangerous drugs found in your home to be 248 grammes of crystalline solid containing 245 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. That is a total of 490 grammes of “Ice”.

The estimated retail value of the “Ice” is approximately $222,656.

You admit to three previous convictions, none of which is similar and all of some age. You largely agree the contents of the antecedents statement which tells me you are 28 Hong Kong born and educated to Form 3. You have had various jobs in your life, including cook, construction worker and computer promoter. I understand that you disagree that you were unemployed at the time of the commission of the offences, that you were in fact still working as a promoter for a computer company and earning about $10,000 per month, $5,000 of which you gave to your mother for support. You claimed to have been addicted to “Ice” since the year 2011. You are single and reside with your mother at the address which was searched.

On your behalf Mr Kan entered mitigation. Very helpfully that was in written form. First of all he pointed out that your mother, elder brother and girlfriend are present in court to offer their support. He added to what was in the antecedents statement by telling me that your parents were divorced in 2001, your father moved away and you have not had contact with him since then. You live with your mother, her age is 57 years of age, and she is of Thai origin. I am told that you are the sole breadwinner of the family, and that you were earning, as I have said, about $10,000 per month, giving $5,000 to your mother for support.

The circumstances of this case were that you finished your education in 2001 and started working. You initially got involved with triad people. You committed various offences, and in 2004 you decided to turn over a new leaf. However, at the beginning of 2014 your grandmother was sick and admitted to hospital, and she passed away in March 2014. Your mother was under enormous financial pressure, and you had to earn quick money to support. This led to these offences.

Quite rightly, Mr Kan identifies the major point of mitigation as your plea of guilty albeit at a late stage. He urges leniency so you can be reunited with your family as soon as possible. He tells me that you plan to take further education whilst prison in order to obtain a better job on release - in fact take a degree course.

Mr Kan also produced a letter that you yourself have written to me. That really supports what Mr Kan put forward. You express your remorse and that you intend to use prison in a positive way to improve yourself and then repay society when you are released.

I turn now to the sentence.

Mr Kan accepts that the starting point he referred to in his mitigation has now been superseded by case law, that is the case of HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun (No 2) CACC 524/2011.

As I indicated at the outset, I intend to marry the two amounts of dangerous drugs contained in the two charges and sentence on that basis because that is fairer to you. Each charge being 245 grammes would have a starting point of 11 to 15 years. However, the total amount being 490 grammes falls within the range of 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment.

I note Mr Kan’s plea that you be sentenced at the lowest end of the scale. However, that would be on the basis of 300 grammes, which is certainly not the case before me. I am dealing with almost half a kilogramme of “Ice” worth almost a quarter of a million dollars.

I will be as lenient as I can in all the circumstances taking into account all that has been said, and you will have the full one-third discount even though this was not a plea at the first available opportunity.

On each of the two charges, the narcotic content is exactly the same, 245 grammes. I take as a starting point 14 years’ imprisonment on each, reduced to 9 years and 4 months on each. I resolve that the overall starting point that you should arrive at would be 18 years, again that is subject to a one-third discount.

Therefore, to arrive at the 12 years, which I am going to impose, the following sentences are imposed: on the 1st charge you will go to prison for 9 years and 4 months; on the 2nd charge, 9 years and 4 months. On the 2nd charge, 2 years and 8 months will be consecutive; and 6 years and 8 months concurrent. And that, unless my calculation falls into error, gives a total of 12 years’ imprisonment.