HKSAR v. Ng Wai Kit

HCCC 334/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 334 OF 2014

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, Charge 1; and one charge of possession of dangerous drugs, Charge 2. Today he confirmed his pleas before me and stands convicted of the two charges.

In sentencing I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, his background and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The defendant was seen walking on a street carrying a white plastic bag with a styrofoam container inside. When he entered the building police approached to intercept him. He put up a brief struggle and said, “I have nothing to do with this, this stuff isn’t mine”.

When the defendant was arrested under caution he maintained that the stuff was not his. With the keys found on the defendant, the police entered a room in that building. Inside the room dangerous drugs were found. About 100 plastic bags, two bottles fit for consumption of “Ice” and an electronic scale were also found.

Inside the styrofoam container were 0.22 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.21 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The dangerous drugs found inside the room were 17.76 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 17.49 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and 0.57 grammes of a solid containing 0.23 grammes of cocaine.

In a subsequent interview the defendant said the things seized from him were not his and he did not know what they were. He admitted that the dangerous drugs found inside the room were for his own consumption.

I was told that the defendant is 43 years of age, he is divorced. He had completed Form 4 education and worked as a garment worker and a transportation worker. The defendant has an appalling criminal record. He had been convicted on 25 occasions. His first conviction was in 1988 when he was 17 years old. For two charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, he was sentenced to 150 hours of community service order. In 1995, he was convicted for the first time of the offence of possession of dangerous drugs. Since then he had been convicted of this offence on 10 more occasions. He committed the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs first in 1996. In 2004 he was convicted of three charges of this offence again. Other offences he had committed include theft, burglary and publishing obscene articles. He committed each of these offences more than once.

Learned defence counsel, Mr Mughal, stressed that the defendant is now remorseful and that he had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He also told the court that the defendant is deeply relied on drugs and this can be seen clearly from his criminal record. He also told the court that the defendant committed the present trafficking offence since he was in great financial difficulties.

After his discharge from prison in March 2013, the defendant has been trying to find an employment but could only manage to find casual transportation job. He ended up with a debt of about $10,000. It was in this difficult situation that the defendantagreed to be a courier of a drug by reward of $2,000. The drugs found inside the room were all for his own consumption.

The Court of Appeal held in Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 that in the case of trafficking in “Ice” where the narcotic content was 70 to 300 grammes, the sentence should range from 10 to 14 years’ imprisonment.

In deciding the starting point, I have to bear in mind the danger of mathematical progression causing injustice.

I see no reason to depart from the tariff. I also have to take into account the fact that the defendant had been convicted twice for this offence before. In my judgment, for this factor the sentence for Charge 1 should be enhanced by about 6 months.

In all the circumstances, I adopt the following start points: Charge 1, 13 years; Charge 2, 3½ years. In adopting the starting point, I have taken into account that the defendant possessed two different types of dangerous drugs, the substantial degree of latent risk and his previous record of similar offence.

The defendant pleaded guilty and for this reason is entitled to a one-third discount.

Having considered the whole circumstances, including what counsel has said on his behalf, I am of the view that this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to.

So, defendant, please stand up.

By reason of the matters aforesaid I sentence you to the following imprisonment terms. Charge 1, 8 years and 8 months; Charge 2, 2 years and 4 months. Having regard to totality, I order the two sentences to run concurrently with each other. So you are to serve a total sentence of 8 years and 8 months for the two charges.