|
HCCC 31/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 13 OF 2015
-----------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
WONG Chi-yuen, Billy |
|
| ------------------ |
| Before: |
Deputy High Court JudgeS D’Almada Remedios |
| Date: |
25 February 2015 at 10.11 am |
| Present: |
Miss Grace Y Y Chan, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Jeff C L Ho, instructed by Cheng & Wong, assigned by DLA for the accused |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) |
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
COURT: Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section (4)(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
On 29 June 2014 at the Lo Wu Control Point, Lo Wu, New Territories, you came into Hong Kong with 0.27 kilogrammes of crystalline solid containing 0.27 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride from mainland China.
Upon search of you by the officers, the drugs were found strapped on your left and right thighs secured by elastane thigh bandages. At the time, they were hidden under the trousers you were wearing. The drugs were contained in a total of five plastic bags.
Upon finding the drugs, you immediately admitted that it was “Ice”. Upon arrest and caution you informed the authorities that you were given the drugs by someone in China, that you were to be paid $2,000 for delivery and $200 for transporting the drugs to Hong Kong.
Once you had passed the Control Point in Hong Kong, you were told that you would be contacted with instructions for delivery of the drugs. However, you had not received any money for this delivery.
The seized dangerous drugs had an estimated retail value, at the time of the seizure, of $153,900. After your arrest, you had made a number of telephone calls in an attempt to make a controlled delivery, but that was unsuccessful as the telephone calls you made were not answered.
Mr Jeff Ho, counsel, has mitigated fully and thoroughly on your behalf, and I have taken into account what he has informed the court. I have also considered the heartfelt letter you have written to me showing your deep remorse and your early admission to this very serious offence.
You are 41 years of age and single. You live with your father who is in his 60s almost retiring, and a stepmother. You are a decoration worker earning $10,000 a month. You admit that you foolishly committed this offence out of greediness.
Mr Ho has acknowledged that this offence was committed some 20 days after the new tariff guidelines laid down by HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun CACC 524/2011 commenced, and those are the guidelines applicable in this case. Mr Ho also accepts that because you were bringing these drugs into Hong Kong, that is an aggravating factor calling for an enhancement of the starting point.
Mr Ho originally had tried to persuade the court that a further discount should be granted in view of your assistance in an attempted controlled delivery.
I brought to Mr Ho’s attention the case of HKSAR v Ho Ka Fu CACC 398/2013 whereby the Court of Appeal and giving judgment of the court, Lunn JA, as he then was, stated that where information given by an accused turned out to be of no practical assistance, a discount was not justified. Mr Ho accepted that no discount should be warranted in this case.
In this case, you tried to make phone calls to get instructions as to where to deliver these drugs. Those phones calls were unsuccessful. There was no assistance whatsoever and, therefore, I consider that no discount is justified.
Defendant, you were trafficking in 270 grammes of “Ice” and bringing the “Ice” from mainland to Hong Kong. In following the tariff laid down in Tam Yi Chun, the amount of drugs falls within the third category of 70 to 300 grammes which is a starting point after trial of between 11 and 15 years’ imprisonment.
What I failed to mention earlier was that, defendant, you have 14 previous convictions and one related to possession of dangerous drugs in 2002 when you were sentenced to DATC.
Taking into consideration the amount of drugs and the factors involved in this case, I consider, if you had been convicted after trial, a starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment would have been appropriate.
In view of the international element of bringing these drugs into Hong Kong, and following the guidelines in the case of Chung Ping Kun CACC 85/2014, I enhance the 14 years starting point by 6 months’ imprisonment.
Therefore, the sentencing point is one of 14 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, that term is discounted by one-third, and you are sentenced to 9 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
|