HKSAR v. HO WAI CHUN RAYMOND

HCCC527/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 527 OF 2014

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The Defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate on one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. He was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today he pleaded guilty before me again and stands convicted of the charge.

In sentencing, I have taken into account the whole circumstances of the case, including its facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, background of the defendant, and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case are simple. On 21 July 2014, the defendant drove a private car from mainland and entered Hong Kong at a customs clearance depot at Lok Ma Chau. Upon search of the car, a plastic bag containing heroin was found at the metal rack for a spare tyre underneath the car boot. Under caution, the defendant said he brought the white powder to Hong Kong since he had no money. In a subsequent interview, he admitted further that he was recruited to bring the dangerous drug to Hong Kong for a reward of $10,000. He obtained the dangerous drug in Shenzhen and concealed it at where it was found before he drove the car back to Hong Kong.

The dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was 1,404 grammes of a mixture containing 1,118 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

Defendant is now 47 years of age. He is married and has two sons, both are adults. He has completed secondary education, and had worked as a delivery worker and in some casual jobs. At the time of arrest, he was a cross-border private car driver.

He is not a first-time offender, however, most of his records were for driving offences. His first conviction took place in 1982, and was for the offence of theft. This is the first time he is convicted of a dangerous drug-related offence. He has never been sentenced to any imprisonment term before.

In R v Lau Tak-ming & Ors [1990] 2 HKLR 370, the Court of Appeal held that an imprisonment term of more than 20 years should be imposed when the narcotic content of heroin involved in the case was more than 600 grammes. In HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas, CACC 304/2008, the Court of Appeal issued supplementary guidelines. The Court held that if the narcotic content of the heroin trafficked in is 600 to 1,200 grammes, the sentence should be 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment. If an international element is involved, it is an aggravating factor.

Having regards to the just-mentioned case of Abdallah, in my judgment, an enhancement of 1½ years is necessary for this factor in the present case. Taking into account the whole circumstances, in particular the quantity of the drug involved, I am of the view that an ultimate starting point of 24 years is appropriate.

The defendant pleaded guilty and did so in the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a one-third discount for this matter.

Learned counsel for the defence, Mr Fung, urged the Court to take into account that the defendant is now in full remorse. The defendant has become a faithful Catholic and a prison chaplain who has been visiting him is convinced of the real change of the defendant. The court is told that the defendant is very cooperative when he is in custody, and has been trying to exert good influence on other inmates.

Defence handed up letters written by the defendant himself, his mother, his wife and his ex-employer. In his letter, the defendant expressed remorse and his determination to turn over a new leaf as a citizen and as a follower of God. Family members asked for clemency. His wife said the defendant is a good and caring husband and father. As the defendant is the main bread-winner of the family, now that he is in custody, the family is facing difficulties. The ex-employer gave good remarks on the defendant and asked for leniency on his behalf.

I am fully satisfied that the defendant has genuine remorse. However the court has a duty to impose an appropriate sentence according to established legal principles. If one repents, God knows. The defendant knows the covenant God makes to his followers.

In all the circumstances, taking into consideration everything said on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Fung, I am persuaded that the defendant deserves a further discount of 6 months.

Defendant please stand up.

For the above reasons, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 15½ years for the offence you are convicted.