HKSAR v. WONG CHEUNG TIN also known as WONG CHI HANG

DCCC 987/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 987 OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

Charge

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.  The particulars of the offence are that on 11 August 2016, outside Chu Fung House, Fung Tak Estate, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 68.8 grammes of a powder containing 32.8 grammes of ketamine.

Facts

3.  The facts which the defendant admitted show that on 11 August 2016, police officers conducted an anti-dangerous drug operation in Fung Tak House, Fung Tak Estate, Wong Tai Sin.  At about 10:54 pm, police intercepted the defendant, who was sitting in the back seat of a taxi outside Ground Floor of Chu Fung House, Fung Tak Estate.

4.  A body search was conducted on him, and the police found a transparent resealable plastic bag containing 26 plastic bags of suspected dangerous drugs in his right front trousers pocket.  A mobile phone and HK$890 cash were also found on him.

5.  Under arrest and caution, the defendant said that it was his first time carrying ketamine for others for HK$500 remuneration.

6.  Upon examination, the Government Chemist confirmed Exhibit 1, which means the transparent plastic bag, to be (a) a plastic bag containing 2.85 grammes of a solid which did not contain any controlled substances; (b) 25 plastic bags containing a total of 68.8 grammes of a powder containing 32.8 grammes of ketamine.

7.  The estimated value of the ketamine seized is HK$14,861.

8.  A house search was conducted at the defendant’s residence in Kwai Chung Estate, with nothing incriminating found.

9.  The defendant now admits that he possessed the ketamine for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Previous Conviction

10.  He has a previous conviction in 2010 for the offence of common assault, when he was almost 15, and for which he was put on probation for 18 months.

Mitigation

11.  He was born on 23 May 1995.  He was 21 on 23 May 2016.  The present offence was committed on 11 August 2016.

12.  Mr Woon submitted that the defendant is the only child.  His father died in November 2015.  His mother and two aunties are in court today to give him support.

13.  He was a delivery man earning 15,000 a month.  A debt of $30,000 to $40,000 was incurred for Chinese medicine for his father as his father suffered cancer.

14.  Mr Woon submitted that the defendant committed the offence of common assault at age 15 and asked this court to simply place no weight on this.  I agree.  Mr Woon further submitted that the defendant is of young age, but he agreed that he is not of extreme youth, say 15.

Reasons for Sentence

15.  In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Woon.  In HKSAR v Pau King Kong [2013] 3 HKLRD 676, the Court of Appeal said, at paragraph 46, that:-

“This court has said on many occasions that in drug cases, no regard can be had to youth except extreme youth, and this applicant does not fall into that category. This court has also said again on numerous occasions that a clear record is subsumed into the one-third discount.”

16.  It is to be noted that Mr Pau King Kong was convicted on his own plea of six charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The drugs involved were small quantities of ketamine and about 3 grammes of “Ice”.  He was 17 at the time of the offences and 18 at the time of sentence.  He had a clear record.  He was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment.

17.  The present defendant committed the present offence at the age of 21.

18.  Time after time the court has expressed clearly that being in financial difficulty is no mitigating factor for committing a crime and family hardship is not a mitigating factor.  See HKSAR v To Yiu Cho [2009] 5 HKLRD 309.

19.  The defendant has committed a serious offence, and imprisonment is inevitable.  The court has to send an unequivocal message to those youngsters who would engage themselves in drug‑trafficking activities that they will inevitably face a custodial sentence.

20.  In Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for trafficking in ketamine.  Where the narcotic content is between 10 grammes and 50 grammes, sentence after trial falls within the range of 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.

21.  The ketamine involved here is 32.8 grammes.  I adopt a starting point of sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment.  That is 60 months.

22.  The defendant indicated his plea of guilty on the plea date in this court in November 2016, and the case was adjourned for sentence today.  He is therefore entitled to a full one‑third discount of sentence.

23.  The only mitigating factor is his plea of guilty.

24.  After discount, he is sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment.