HKSAR v. WONG KIN PONG

HCCC 416/2024

[2025] HKCFI 4134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 416 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

____________________________________

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

____________________________________

COURT: Before a magistrate, the defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was committed before me for sentence. In sentencing, I have considered the whole of the circumstances including the nature and facts of the case, the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, personal background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf. I have also had regard to the sentencing approach that is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. On 25 May 2023, police officers intercepted the defendant after he had left a flat on the 6^th floor of a building. At that time, the defendant was holding a bag in which a total of 20 plastic bags each containing dangerous drug was found. The drug was a total of 476 grammes of a solid containing 422 grammes of cocaine which is the subject matter of Charge 1.

The defendant was arrested. Under caution he said he was delivering this “Hor Lok” to a bush nearby to hand them to others and he would have $3,000 as a reward after that.

So the defendant was taken back to the said flat. Entry was gained with a key found on the defendant. There more dangerous drug was found. It was a total of 127.4 grammes of a solid containing 109.7 grammes of cocaine and 2,365 grammes of a solid containing 1,861 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride. These are the subject matters of Charge 2. Besides substantial quantity of Part I poison was also found.

Paraphernalia such as electronic scales, bottles, measuring cups, scissors, sealing machines, sieves, pots, and containers most containing traces of cocaine were also found.

Under caution the defendant said those “Hor Lok” in the room will also be delivered by him to others later but the time was not yet known. The defendant started to rent the flat on 31 October 2022. Later a house search was conducted at the home of the defendant and nothing illegal was found.

I was told that the defendant is now 32 years of age. He attended education up to Form 4. At the time of arrest he was unemployed. He had been living with his mother who was divorced.

In mitigation, learned counsel for the defence Mr Chau Hing-pang, stressed that the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is now remorseful. He also asked the court to take into account that the defendant has no criminal conviction record. Mr Chau informed the court that the parents of the defendant divorced when he was around four to five years old. He was brought up by his mother.

It is said the defendant is a good and caring son. At school, the defendant was respectful to teachers and helpful to schoolmates. He worked hard both during study and employment. Unfortunately, the defendant was laid off when his employer could not maintain his business during the pandemic. The defendant was in financial difficulties. Not without hesitation he succumbed to the temptation and agreed to the suggestion of a friend to take up this illegal task.

Mr Chau also informed the court that the mother of the defendant was recently diagnosed to be suffering from cancer and is receiving treatment. The defendant is very worried.

The defence produced a letter written by the defendant in which he expressed remorse and determination to be a law-abiding citizen after serving the sentence. During remand he has been attending classes and religion sessions.

The defence also produced letters written by family members of the defendant, his teacher, supervisors in his previous employment, and a worker in a Christian body. All of them said the defendant is a person of good nature and pleaded leniency on his behalf. The mother, sister, and some other family members of the defendant are present in court to show their support.

All the charges relate to cocaine. Having heard counsel and had regard to the observation of the Court of Final Appeal in Seabrook v HKSAR [1999] 2 HKCFAR 184, I am of the view that the tariff set out in the recent case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3)  [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 should be applied.

In all the circumstances of the case, I see no reason to depart from the tariff. I accept the submission of Mr Chau that the defendant played the role of a courier. In my judgment, the defendant occupied a relatively low position in the hierarchy of the trafficking operation, but in the light of the quantity of the drug in his possession there was a substantial degree of trust from those who engaged him in this illegal exercise.

(Discussion re clarification)

I do not see there is any matter which amounts to an aggravating factor. In all the circumstances, I adopt the following notional sentences after trial: Charge 1, 14 years and 11 months; Charge 2, 20½ years.

The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate and for this he is entitled to a one-third discount for each charge in the circumstances. Having considered the whole of the circumstances, including that this was the first time the defendant had committed an offence and what Mr Chau said on his behalf, in my judgment this is the extent of discount defendant is entitled to.

The defendant is being sentenced for two offences. I accept the submission of Mr Chau that in the circumstances of the present case, the aggregate sentence for Charge 1 and 2 should be considered having regard to the total quantity of the drug seized, which was 2,392.7 grammes of cocaine. Having considered the whole of the circumstances and the totality principle, in my view 21 years is the appropriate overall nominal sentence after trial.

To give effect to this, I will order part of the sentence on Charge 2 to run consecutively to that of Charge 1. In my judgment, the overall sentence to be imposed is a fair, just, and balanced one in all the circumstances of the case and of the defendant.

For the reasons I have said, I impose the following sentences on you: Charge 1, 9 years and 11 months; Charge 2, 13 years and 8 months. Further, I order 4 years and 1 month of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 to run consecutively to the sentence imposed on Charge 1. As a result, you are to serve a total sentence of 14 years for the two charges.