HKSAR v. WONG TSZ CHUNG

DCCC 223/2024

[2024] HKDC 2120

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 223 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Mr Wong pleaded guilty before me to two charges on a Charge Sheet as follows.

2.  Charge 1 is Possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  Particulars are that he, on 21 September 2023, at Room 305, Pik Kwai House, Kwai Chung Estate, Kwai Chung, New Territories, in Hong Kong, had in his possession a dangerous drug, namely 6.27 grammes of cannabis in herbal form.

3.  Charge 2 is Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  Particulars are that he, on the same day, at the same place, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 6.53 grammes of a solid containing 5.75 grammes of cocaine.

Facts admitted by Mr Wong

4.  On 21 September 2023, armed with a search warrant, police conducted an anti-narcotic operation against Mr Wong’s residence at Room 305 aforesaid.

5.  At 8:38 pm, police intercepted Mr Wong when he was returning to Room 305.  Upon body search, an iPhone, cash of $2,550 and a key to Room 305 were found on him.  Mr Wong opened the door of the premises with the key.

6.  House search was conducted.  Police found the following items in a previously locked safe on a computer desk situated in Mr Wong’s bedroom:-

(a)  One re-sealable transparent plastic bag containing 22 re-sealable transparent plastic bags containing a total of 6.53 grammes of a solid containing 5.75 grammes of cocaine;

(b)  One electronic scale;

(c)  Cash of $14,000; and

(d)  One re-sealable plastic bag containing some re-sealable transparent plastic bags.

7.  The police also found the following items in the lowest drawer of the computer desk:-

(a)  One re-sealable transparent plastic bag containing two handrolled cigarettes containing respectively 0.33 gramme of cannabis in herbal form and 0.32 gramme of cannabis in herbal form;

(b)  One re-sealable plastic bag containing 4.72 grammes of cannabis in herbal form;

(c)  One metallic grinder containing 0.90 gramme of cannabis in herbal form; and

(d)  Two packs of cigarette paper.

8.  Mr Wong was arrested for possession of a dangerous drug and for trafficking of a dangerous drug.  Under caution, Mr Wong admitted that the cannabis was for self-consumption and the cocaine was for sale.

9.  On the next day, a cautioned VRI was conducted with Mr Wong during which he admitted:-

(a)  He was the one using the bedroom;

(b)  In early July 2023, he bought the cannabis for $1,000 and the cocaine for $10,000 from a male in a basketball court in Yuen Long;

(c)  He ground the cannabis with metallic grinder and rolled the cannabis with cigarette paper to smoke; he consumed the cannabis in the bedroom;

(d)  He weighed the cocaine with the electronic scale and packed 0.30 gramme of cocaine in each re-sealable transparent plastic bag for sale; he sold each pack of cocaine for $600 in the parks and basketball courts in Kwai Chung Estate; and

(e)  The cash of $14,000 inside the safe was the proceeds of trafficking in cocaine.

Criminal record

10.  Mr Wong has 3 previous convictions two of which were for possession of dangerous drug.

Antecedents

11.  Mr Wong is aged 25 (24 at the time of the offences), educated to VTC level.  He has been a clerk with a monthly income of about $15,000.  He is single and lived with his parents in the subject premises.

Mitigation

12.  Mr David CW Cheung of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Wong.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

13.  Mr Wong pleaded guilty to the offences.  He is remorseful and asks for leniency.

14.  There is no tariff for possession of a dangerous drug.  The 6.27 grammes of herbal cannabis found in Mr Wong’s bedroom desk drawer was for self-consumption.

15.  Mr Cheung submitted the sentencing case of HKSAR v Pang Chin Hung [2020] HKCFI 3061 for my reference as to how I might deal with the possession charge.  In short, Mr Cheung urges the court to adopt a starting point in the region of 3 weeks’ imprisonment.

16.  Mr Cheung reminded the court of the six-step approach identified in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

17.  Mr Cheung referred to the sentencing guidelines in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 (read with AG v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 2 HKCLR 69)  and submitted that the relevant band for trafficking in 5.75 grammes of cocaine would be 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment for quantities up to 10 grammes.  Mr Cheung worked out the purely arithmetical figure for 5.75 grammes to be just under 3 years and 9 months as a starting point.

18.  Mr Cheung submitted that although Mr Wong was admittedly a seller, he was a low level and an unsophisticated one.

19.  Mr Cheung submitted on behalf of Mr Wong one mitigation letter written in English by Mr Wong’s ex-employer.  The contents are generally that Mr Wong was a hardworking and punctual young man and was always ready to assist his colleagues; that the company was prepared to re-employ him should he be given a lighter sentence.

20.  Lastly, Mr Cheung reminded the court of the totality principle and urges the court to impose concurrent sentences.

Sentence

21.  Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence for which condign punishments are handed down by the courts as a matter of course.  Anyone, especially a potential first offender, thinking of earning quick money by this means is hereby warned, once again.

22.  For Charge 2, I shall adopt an initial starting point of 3 years 9 months’ imprisonment.  For Mr Wong’s aggravated role as an actual seller of cocaine, I shall enhance the starting point by 3 months to 4 years’ imprisonment.

23.  For Charge 1, because of the small amount of herbal cannabis involved, I shall adopt a starting point of 6 weeks’ imprisonment.

24.  Mr Wong pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors that I can see which has the effect of reducing his sentence further.

25.  Having regard to the principle of totality, I shall order the sentences to be served concurrently.

(Mr Wong, please stand)

26.  On Charge 1, the sentence is 4 weeks’ imprisonment.

27.  On Charge 2, the sentence is 32 months’ imprisonment.

28.  I order the sentences to run concurrently with each other.