HKSAR v. WONG CHI CHIU, JEFFREY

HCCC 403/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE,

CRIMINAL CASE NO 403 OF 2013

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The 1st defendant, Wong Chi-chiu, Jeffrey, pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely 1.84 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride which is also known as ‘Ice’.

On 23 May 2013, the 1st defendant was arrested at the Hong Kong International Airport together with three other persons including the 2nd defendant, So Pui-ying, the 3rd defendant, Li Hok-leung, and a person named Yim Man-ho when they were about to check in a flight from Hong Kong to Australia. On body searches, dangerous drugs were found wrapped around the three defendants’ legs.

The 2nd defendant pleaded guilty before Deputy High Court Judge Tallentire. The quantity of ‘Ice’ involved in her case was 18 kilogrammes and the learned judge adopted a starting point of 20½ years’ imprisonment. The learned judge enhanced the sentence for 2 years for international element and reduced the sentence to 15 years, taking into account her mitigation.

The 3rd defendant pleaded guilty before me to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely 2.12 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’ and 4.11 grammes of ketamine. I adopted the same starting point of 20½ years’ imprisonment, enhanced the sentence for 2 years for international element and reduced his sentence to 13½ years, taking into account various mitigations.

Yim Man-ho was initially not charged with any offence. The 1st defendant later gave a statement to the police implicating Yim Man-ho and agreed to testify against him, upon which the police laid charges against Yim and he was charged before a jury, with me as the presiding judge. The 1st defendant gave evidence against Yim at trial and Yim was convicted of one count of conspiracy to traffick in dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to 30½ years’ imprisonment. In my direction to the jury, I have directed the jury that they must acquit Yim unless they accept the evidence of the 1st defendant.

The 1st defendant is now 51 years old and is single. He received education up to the level of Form 6. He used to be a sales representative in his sister’s garment business, earning over $20,000 per month. He has nine previous convictions, most of them are possession of dangerous drugs and there are also a few offences of dishonesty.

As the present offence was committed before the Court of Appeal’s decision in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun, for trafficking of ‘Ice’, the sentencing guideline of AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 is applicable, under which, the starting point for trafficking in a quantity of more than 600 grammes of ‘Ice’ shall be over 18 years.

In the present case, I see no reason to depart from the starting point adopted in sentencing the 2nd and 3rd defendants and I also see no reason to depart from the adoption of the enhancement of 2 years for the international element involved.

Mr Sadhwani, counsel for the 1st defendant, submitted that the 1st defendant had assisted in convicting Yim and he fell within the category of a super-grass. He submitted that the 1st defendant is entitled to a two-third discount in his sentence.

While I accept that the 1st defendant has given valuable assistance in the trial of Yim Man-ho and the conviction of Yim was due to the evidence he has given, I do not accept he fell within the category of a super-grass, that is to say a defendant who had expressed his willingness to assist the police at considerable personal risk, The Queen v Chan Fu Kui [1986] HKLR 967. In the present case, I do not accept that the 1st defendant is under considerable personal risk in testifying against Yim Man-ho.

Mr Sadhwani submitted that the 1st defendant was being attacked by someone in the prison and according to the 1st defendant, the attack was due to his intention to give evidence against Yim. I have indicated to Mr Sadhwani that there was before me insufficient evidence to prove that that was the real cause of the attack or fight. However, Mr Sadhwani did not seek to introduce further evidence.

In fact, in Yim Man-ho’s trial, there was evidence introduced in relation to the previous communications between the 1st defendant and Yim Man-ho in Lai Chi Kok Detention Centre. I can see no fear expressed by the 1st defendant towards Yim in their communications. On the contrary, it seems to me that the 1st defendant was the one more eager to contact Yim in the prison.

The 1st defendant was caught red-handed and the sole purpose of his testifying against Yim was for the reduction of his sentence. In Z v HKSAR [2007] 10 HKCFAR 183, Li CJ described the range of reductions of sentence for co-operation with the authorities and his lordship stated that where an appellant had not only given information but proceeded to give truthful and material evidence, the Court of Appeal has given a usual discount of 50 per cent including the one-third discount for pleading guilty, and his lordship cited the Court of Appeal case of HKSAR v Lee Yat Fan, CACC 414/1999, (unreported, 30 May 2001). I am of the view that a 50 per cent discount is appropriate in the present case.

To recap, the starting point I adopt in the present case is 20½ years’ imprisonment. The sentence is enhanced to 22½ years due to the international element. The overall sentence is reduced by 50 per cent to 11 years and 3 months for the assistance given by the 1st defendant to the authorities.