HKSAR v. WONG YAT CHIN AND ANOTHER

DCCC 534/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 534 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence for D1

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. You have also pleaded guilty to a further charge of possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 8(1)(a) of the same ordinance.

2.  On 16 January 2013 at about 3 am police officers spotted your vehicle at the Charming Garden Multi-storey Car Park and approached it.  You were at the driver’s seat along with another passenger in the front passenger seat as well as the 2nd defendant at the rear passenger seat.  The 2nd defendant is your co-habitant girlfriend who is also the mother of your child.

3.  Upon search of the vehicle the drugs in Charge 1 was found.  That was 26.07 grammes of a solid containing 21.76 grammes of cocaine, 0.19 grammes of a mixture containing 0.16 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 0.35 grammes of a solid containing 0.34 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly referred to as ice. 

4.  These drugs were found in many plastics bags. There were 113 bags which contained cocaine, one banknote which contained heroin and two bags which contained the “Ice”.  Found in possession of your girlfriend, of which you admit was partly for your possession, was the ketamine, the subject matter of Charge 2, which was wrapped in a paper packet and contained 2.78 grammes of a solid containing 2.31 grammes of ketamine.

5.  You immediately admitted that the drugs in Charge 1 were for trafficking.  You have now admitted that the drugs in respect of Charge 2 were for you and your girlfriend’s (your co-accused) own consumption.

6.  Mr John Hemmings, your counsel, has made full and thorough mitigation on your behalf.  I have taken into account all that he has had to say.

7.  You are 32 years of age and are of clear record. You cohabitated with the 2nd defendant and together have a young son aged 4.  You worked as a delivery worker earning $12,000 a month and contributed $5,000 per month to your family.

8.  Mr Hemmings was quite forthright in saying that clearly the strongest mitigating factor for you is your plea of guilty. Through your plea, he has told me you have expressed remorse and since you have been in custody for the past nine months, you have reflected upon the consequences of your wrongdoing and have promised to turn a new leaf when you are released.

9.  You have regretted your misdeeds in that your extended family members are affected as well as your young son who is now in the care of the Social Welfare Department.

10.  As Mr Hemmings has rightly pointed out, trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence.  Sentencing tariffs are laid down by the Court of Appeal.

11.  For Charge 1, the largest quantity of drugs was cocaine, the drugs of 21.76 grammes were contained in 113 packets.  For the heroin, that was contained in a banknote and that was 0.16 grammes. Had I convicted you after trial for the quantity of cocaine, I would have taken a starting point of 69 months or 5 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.  On the quantity of heroin alone for trafficking, the starting point would have been one of 2 years’ imprisonment.   For the quantity of “Ice” which was 0.34 grammes and that alone would have attracted a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment after trial. 

12.  There is of course a mixture of drugs here.  In view of the mixture of drugs, I take an overall term on the totality of the drugs and sentence you on that overall total amount. 

13.  Given the mixture of drugs of cocaine, heroin and “Ice”, had I convicted you after trial, I would have taken a total starting point term of imprisonment of 6 years. 

14.  You have pleaded guilty and that deserves a full one-third discount to that term.  In the circumstances that sentence shall then be reduced to 4 years’ imprisonment on charge 1.

15.  Mr Hemmings has informed the court that part of those drugs was for your own consumption as you were a recreational user.  You had been a recreational user for approximately one year.  He, however, gave me a Correctional Services Department letter dated 8 October 2013 which was a medical report on the result of urine test on certain drugs taken, on drugs, when you were admitted to the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre.   That is two days after your arrest, a urine test was taken from you at Lai Chi Kok.  That urine specimen collected from you showed negative result to amphetamine, benzodiazepine, opiates and cannabis.

16.  Mr Hemmings has urged upon me despite the negative result, he has asked me to accept that you were a recreational user, that is an occasional user of drugs and you had some of these drugs for your own use.

17.  You have pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of ketamine in Charge 2.  I accept that a small part was for your own consumption.  On that basis, on Charge 1, I shall reduce the sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment to that of 46 months’ imprisonment to which term you shall be sentenced in Charge 1. 

18.  For Charge 2, this is your first offence for possession of dangerous drugs. You are of clear record.  Had I convicted you after trial for this offence, I would have taken a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment.  Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, that term shall be reduced to 8 months’ imprisonment.  Given that these drugs there were partly for D2 and taking the principle of totality into account, I shall order Charge 2 to run concurrent to that of Charge 1, making a total term of 46 months’ imprisonment to which you shall so serve.