HKSAR v. WONG HING CHIN

HCCC 193/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2663

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 193 OF 2018

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

This is my sentence and the reasons. The defendant was convicted before me by a jury of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The facts of the case as it must have been found by the jury were that two members of a police anti-drug patrol at Kin Ming Estate in Tseung Kwan O noticed the defendant behaving suspiciously and stopped and searched him. In a handbag carried by him were found 4 packets of ‘Ice’, totalling in weight 107 grammes of which 102 grammes was the narcotic.

The defence put forward by the defendant in his own evidence at trial was that he had been framed by the police and knew nothing of the drugs which he said had not been found in his handbag but elsewhere.

I take a starting point of sentence of 10 years 8 months’ imprisonment. Mr Chan advances as mitigation firstly, the defendant’s previous clear record and his good employment record.

The sentencing in this matter was adjourned to today because of the defendant’s earlier emotional state. The defendant was upset at the time of his detention in the report room cell of Tseung Kwan O Police Station and attempted to harm himself by hitting his head against the wall. He was prevented from doing so and after a brief physical inspection at the station which revealed no apparent injury declined medical treatment. I do not place any weight on that incident nor on the defendant’s further attempt at self-harm after he was convicted and placed in prison awaiting sentence. On that latter occasion the defendant again attempted to self-harm himself and his sentencing was adjourned to today.

But while it is apparent to me that the defendant is an emotional individual and angry at his conviction, I do not place, as I say, any weight on this later attempt to self-harm.

Accordingly, the defendant cannot gain assistance in his sentencing from his displays of anger. While a report on the defendant’s emotional state, might well have been called for in determining whether he was sufficiently in control of his emotions to participate in the sentencing process. I am satisfied today, both from my own observation and from the information provided to me this morning that the defendant has recovered his self-control and could participate sufficiently in the sentencing process. I think it would be better for him to get the matter over and done with in any event.

The defendant, as I have said, does possess a clear record but I do not propose to give him any discount in sentence because of that. In my view, the serious nature of the offence negates his previously clear record. In my view, none of the other matters put by Mr Chan or which I have outlined can amount to mitigation.

That being said, the defendant is sentenced to 10 years 8 months’ imprisonment.