HKSAR v. KWOK WAI YEE

HCCC 112/2019

[2020] HKCFI 397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 112 OF 2019

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant had pleaded guilty in the lower court to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 201.1 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 196.9 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. She had also pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a dangerous drug, namely traces of a powder containing ketamine.

The facts reveal that on the evening at about 10.13 pm on 31st December 2017, in a basement of a building outside the Sha Tin Fun City, she was seen sitting on a sofa with another person and acting suspiciously.

Upon a search, a plastic bag containing 13.1 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 12.9 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride was seized from a piece of tissue which she was holding in her right hand.

A total of seven plastic bags containing a total of 188 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 184 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride was seized from inside a cloth bag which she was carrying.

Also seized was a paper packet containing traces of a powder containing ketamine and a straw from her left front trouser pocket and also seized was an electronic scale from the defendant’s rucksack.

The total methamphetamine hydrochloride seized was worth estimated street value of around $112,213.80.

Urine test conducted on the defendant after her arrest tested positive for amphetamine.

The defendant is aged 33 and has previous convictions for possession of dangerous drugs in 2010 and for trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2013, for which she was sent to prison for 22 months. Her discharge from prison was in 2015 and this offence was committed not long after, in 2017. So, obviously, she did not learn any lesson from her previous incarceration.

I have seen the letters written by her family and she should be thankful that the family have not given up on her. The letter which the defendant has written to the court says that she is remorseful and now has decided to turn over a new leaf. The letter from the ministry secretary was also shown to me, saying that the defendant has expressed deep remorse for what she has done.

Well, all this is a matter for the defendant. Nobody can help her except herself. Now, hopefully, the term of imprisonment I will impose will give her time to reflect on whether she continues with this sort of lifestyle or she is determined to break away from this lifestyle and make something of herself so that her family can be proud of her. She can no longer claim this lack of discipline or lack of supervision when growing up, at the age of 33.

Now, Ms So has also correctly pointed out that the Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines for sentencing in relation to trafficking in dangerous drugs - in methamphetamine hydrochloride, in the case of Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691.

And, in the 1st count, the total weight of the drugs is 196.9 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, which would merit a sentence after trial of between 13 to 13½ years.

Ms So has submitted that the defendant claims that one packet of the drugs found on her was for her own consumption.

As I have indicated, I am not prepared to consider that that amount of drugs were for her own consumption without evidence and that I would give her a slight discount, taking into account that her urine test tested positive for amphetamine, but it would not be anywhere near discount for a whole packet of drugs.

I am also concerned that she was found in public on the street with an electronic scale in her rucksack and a straw with traces of ketamine. However, there is no evidence she had used them on this occasion.

So, taking everything into account, the facts of the case, the background of the defendant, I consider that an appropriate starting point would be 13½ years after trial.

Of course, as I have said, I will give her a slight discount to recognise the fact that she may be tempted to take some of the methamphetamine for her own consumption, so I will reduce that starting point to 13 years.

So, giving the defendant the full one-third discount, the sentence is therefore reduced to 8 years and 8 months.

And, on the 2nd charge, only traces were found and so I would consider that an appropriate starting point would be 6 months.

Giving her one-third discount off, the sentence would be one of 4 months and, because of the facts of the case, I will order that the sentence in the 2nd count be concurrent to the sentence in the 1st count.

So the defendant goes to prison for a total of 8 years and 8 months.