HKSAR v. KUK SO WA

HCCC 300/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2659

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 300 OF 2018

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant, a 40-year-old female, was committed to this court for sentence in respect of a single charge of trafficking in a cocktail of dangerous drugs comprising 95.1 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 27.93 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The facts of the case resulted from an anti-drug operation carried out at the address stated in the charge in a building in Kwun Tong. Police noticed at that address, a man opening the door of Room B2 at that building from the inside and allowing another male to enter. The police then also entered the room and found the defendant inside a bedroom inside the flat. She had refused to open the bedroom door and had thrown a box containing three plastic bags which contained the ‘Ice’ the subject of the charge and part of the heroin. Three other plastic bags containing the remainder of the heroin were found in the bedroom.

Equipment suitable for drug consumption was also found in the flat as well as the two intercepted males and another four males.

The defendant subsequently admitted that the men found in the flat had come to buy drugs from her.

In the defendant’s wallet was found a sum of $37,950, which the prosecution has agreed prior today’s hearing, should be returned to her.

I regard the drugs found in the defendant’s possession, as comprising a cocktail of dangerous drugs and had adopted the conversion approach in considering my sentence. Insofar is that particular test is concerned, it matters not at all as to whether the conversion is from heroin to ‘Ice’ or vice versa. In my calculation I reduced the heroin to an equivalent amount of ‘Ice’ and arrived at the totality of 68 grammes of ‘Ice’.

I therefore could have taken the starting point of sentence of 10 years 10 months’ imprisonment.

Mr Cheung for the prosecution however has helpfully provided me with his own calculation based on the ratio test. The results of each test are within 2 months of each other. Mr Cheung’s calculation differs from the court only because of our estimation or assumptions of the original starting points for the purposes of each calculation. Accordingly, because Mr Cheung’s test results in a lesser sentence for the defendant, I adopt that test. That test arrived at the starting point of 10 years 5 months’ imprisonment.

There was only one factor relevant to mitigation and that is the defendant’s early plea of guilty at her committal. For that she receives the full one-third discount and the starting point of 10 years 5 months is accordingly reduced to 6 years 11 months’ imprisonment. As I say that is slightly less than the sentence I would otherwise have imposed, but in my view in the circumstances of this case, the defendant should be given the benefit of the slightly lower sentence.

The defendant is presently serving a sentence for another drug-related offence which had no connection to the present offence. That sentence is due to expire in 6 days’ time. I order that the sentence to be served in respect of the present offence be served concurrently with the remaining 6 days of the sentence imposed in respect of the previous offence.