HKSAR v. HONG WEI JUN

DCCC 371/2018

[2018] HKDC 1109

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 371 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  Defendant Hong Wei Jun pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. Particulars of offence are that he, on 17 January 2018, outside Backingham Building, No 319 Nathan Road, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 44.30 grammes of a solid containing 33.05 grammes of cocaine.

Admitted facts

2.  The facts admitted by Mr Hong may be summarized as follows.

3.  In the small hours of 17 January 2018, outside Backingham Building at Yau Ma Tei, Mr Hong was seen acting suspiciously.  Observing police stopped and searched him.

4.  Upon search, the police found one black plastic bag tugged beneath his underwear, which contained:-

(a) One plastic bag containing 54 plastic bags containing a total of 11.1 grammes of a solid containing 8.23 grammes of cocaine;

(b) One plastic bag containing 54 plastic bags containing a total of 11.0 grammes of a solid containing 7.97 grammes of cocaine;

(c) One plastic bag containing 54 plastic bags containing a total of 11.0 grammes of a solid containing 8.45 grammes of cocaine; and

(d) One plastic bag containing 54 plastic bags containing a total of 11.2 grammes of a solid containing 8.40 grammes of cocaine.

5.  The estimated street value of the drug referred to above was $55,729.40.

6.  Under arrest and caution, Mr Hong admitted that he had received $1,000 and was instructed to bring the black plastic bag here and to wait.

7.  Mr Hong also had with him:-

(a) One mobile phone and three SIM cards;

(b) Cash of $4,921; and

(c) Cash of RMB380.

8.  In a later cautioned VRI, Mr Hong stated that:-

(a) The cash of $4,921 and RMB380 belonged to him;

(b) The nature of his job at the airport involved conveying items of things which job he had kept for one to two years; and

(c) His daily wage was $550.

Criminal record

9.  Mr Hong enjoys a clear record.

Antecedents

10.  The agreed antecedents statement shows Mr Hong to be aged 20 (19 at the time of the offence); that he was born in the Mainland; that he received up to secondary level education; that he was unemployed at the time of the offence.

Mitigation

11.  Mr Henry Ma of counsel mitigated on behalf of Mr Hong.

12.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

13.  The tariffs set down in Lau Tak Ming would mean that the starting point here would be 81 months’ imprisonment.  Mr Ma asks for 1/3 discount for the plea of guilty which would reduce the sentence to 54 months.

14.  However, Mr Ma tries to persuade the court to call for a Training Centre report in view of Mr Hong’s young age and clear record.  Mr Ma submits that together with the time spent in custody under remand, a training centre detention may work out to be about the same in terms of time as prison term after remission.  Besides, Mr Ma submits, there is also the element of supervision after a training centre detention.

15.  On a personal background level, Mr Hong’s biological parents did not take care of him after birth and so he was adopted to live in Hong Kong with his adopted parents.  Mr Hong studied up to F4; then he worked as a casual delivery worker earning $10,000 a month.

16.  At the time of the offence, he met undesirable peers who asked him to carry the drug for $1,000 quick money.

17.  Mr Ma submitted 2 mitigation letters written respectively by Mr Hong himself and by his adopted family members 5 of whom are in court to tender their support.  The first letter generally tells how remorseful Mr Hong was; and the second letter speaks of Mr Hong’s general good nature.  Mr Ma also submits 4 certificates of various endeavours that Mr Hong had accumulated between 2013 and 2014 while he was in school.

18.  Lastly, Mr Ma asks the court to take a rehabilitative approach in sentencing Mr Hong.

Sentence

19.  I have considered the mitigation submissions made by Mr Henry Ma and I have read the two mitigation letters submitted.

20.  Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence for which a deterrent sentence is called for notwithstanding a defendant’s young age.  In this respect, the rehabilitative approach has to give way.

21.  The tariff sentences for trafficking in cocaine are to be aligned with those for trafficking in heroin for weights of pure narcotic up to 600 grammes: Attorney General v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 2 HKCLR 69.

22.  The tariff sentences for trafficking in heroin are set out in the case of R v Lau Tak Ming & Ors [1990] 2 HKLR 370.  For trafficking in 10 to 50 grammes of the drug, the sentence should be between 5 and 8 years’ imprisonment.

23.  In this case, the amount of cocaine involved was 33.05 grammes of cocaine. On the basis of weight, I shall adopt a starting point of 6 years 9 months’ imprisonment.

24.  Mr Hong pleaded guilty in time so he is entitled to a 1/3 discount. There are no other mitigating factors which could earn him any further discount.

[Mr Hong, please stand]

25.  Mr Hong will go to prison for 4 years 6 months.