HKSAR v. WONG TAK SHING

HCCC 217/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 217 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant has been convicted on his own plea on two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

The Particulars of Offence in respect of Count 1 provide that on 22 July 2015, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 3.80 kilogrammes of a waxy solid containing 1.40 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as the ‘Ice’ drug.

The Particulars of Offence in respect of Count 2 provide that on 22 July 2015, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 3.54 kilogrammes of a waxy solid containing 1.20 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides inter alia that on 23 July 2015, a security officer of DHL International Express Delivery (Hong Kong) Company Limited contacted Customs for inspection of two parcels with bill of lading numbers 1516654322, in respect of Exhibit P1, and 3327865774, in respect of Exhibit P20, from DHL Central Asia Hub International Airport and DHL Yun Fat Express Delivery Centre in Cheung Sha Wan.

The two parcels were both addressed to one Gipson Chan at 12/8 Williams Road, Prahran, Victoria 3181, Melbourne, Australia, and the sender of the two parcels was Dickson Wong, Flat B, 18th Floor, Block 2, Grand Waterfront, To Kwa Wan, Hong Kong, telephone number 67577183.

Upon inspection, Customs Officer 13185, in the presence of Senior Customs Officer 8811 and a staff member of DHL, Cheung Hing-yu, found each parcel to contain a plastic box containing a waxy substance which upon narcotic test yielded result positive for methyl-amphetamine. The parcels were seized by the Customs.

Upon examination by a government chemist, Doctor Ho Siu-hong, Exhibit P1 was found to be 3.80 kilogrammes of a waxy solid containing 1.4 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Exhibit P20 was found to be 3.54 kilogrammes of a waxy solid containing 1.2 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Investigation with DHL revealed that at about 1645 hours on 22 July 2015, the defendant went to DHL, Hung Hom Square, Hung Hom ,with two red colour boxes and asked to mail one box to Australia. When asked what the item was, the defendant said it was a handicraft article. The DHL officer, upon opening the box, found a wax like product, being Exhibit P20. He put the item into a carton box, printing out two copies of bill of lading No 332865774 in respect of Exhibit P20, one of which was given to the defendant. In respect of the other copy, the DHL officer got the defendant to sign upon it and produced his Hong Kong Identity Card. The officer wrote down the defendant’s name and his Hong Kong Identity Card number on the bill of lading for Exhibit P20.

At about 1720 hours on 22 July 2015, the defendant went to DHL Empress Plaza, Tsim Sha Tsui, and asked to send an item to Australia. The DHL officer asked the defendant what the item was, the defendant replied he did not know, saying that he was mailing it for someone. The DHL officer opened the parcel in front of the defendant and found a plastic box containing a waxy product, being Exhibit P1. The officer asked the defendant whether it was wax to which the defendant replied in the affirmative. Two copies of bill of lading No 1516654322, in respect of Exhibit P1 were printed out, with one copy being given to the defendant. In respect of the other copy, the officer got the defendant to sign on it and to produce his Hong Kong ID card. The officer then wrote down the defendant’s name and Hong Kong ID card number on the bill of lading for Exhibit P1.

At about 1915 hours on 24 July 2015, a Customs Officer No 0720, pretending to be a DHL staff member, telephoned the sender of the parcels on telephone number 67577183, as stated on the bill of lading and asked to speak to Mr Wong. The called party said he was Mr Wong. The officer told him that the person named Mr Chan had just called to check delivery of Exhibit P20 but would not leave a phone number. The party said he would find Mr Chan and would call back later.

At 1402 hours on 27 July 2015, Customs Officer No 0720, pretending to a DHL staff member, telephoned the sender of the parcel, Exhibit P20, and spoke to Mr Wong again, informing him that the security label on the shipped item was missing and he needed to sign another one. The called party agreed to come at 10 am the next day at the DHL shop in Hung Hom.

On 28 July 2015, a team of custom officers carried out a controlled operation at DHL Hung Hom.

At about 1041 hours on 28 July 2015, the defendant and one Ms Ng arrived at the DHL service point in Hung Hom. The defendant told Customs Officer No 0692, pretending to be a DHL staff member, that he had received a call the previous day from DHL saying that there were problems with a parcel.

The defendant took out two bills of lading in respect of Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P20 and showed them to the Customs Officer. The Customs Officer asked the defendant if the two parcels being Exhibit P1 and P20 were sent by him to which the defendant replied affirmatively. The defendant also showed his Hong Kong ID card to the officer. The defendant then signed a security label relating to Exhibit P1.

The defendant then asked about the delivery status of the two parcels and was told by the Officer that he could not see the progress of the delivery there and gave the defendant a DHL hotline information document containing telephone numbers. The defendant handed the document over to Ms Ng who put it in her handbag.

On leaving, the defendant and Ms Ng were arrested outside DHL. Under caution, the defendant said inter alia:

(i) The name Dickson Wong and the telephone number 67577183 on the two air waybills belong to him.

(ii) The item with air waybill No 1516654322 was sent by him in DHL Tsim Sha Tsui and the other parcel with air waybill No 3327865774 was sent him in DHL Hung Hom.

(iii) The items did not belong to him. He did not know what was contain in the items. Someone gave him the items to send but he did not know the name of the person or contact number of the person. Each time the person called him. He did not receive any money for sending the parcels. Ms Ng was his girlfriend and she accompanied him to DHL and has no knowledge of the contents of the two parcels.

A video-recorded interview was taken from the defendant where, under caution, he said to the effect, inter alia:

(i) He was in debt of around HK$20,000 to HK$30,000 to financial companies.

(ii) He had found a person on the internet who was offering quick money. The post gave a telephone number and stated that the work was not illegal. He called the number and was told that the work involves sending something by couriers. So he decided to do it.

(iii) He saved the person’s telephone number on his mobile phone, calling the person ‘Gwai Tiu Chai’.

(iv) Gwai Tiu Chai told the defendant that the parcels were crafted goods and not law breaking. The defendant believed the person. Gwai Tiu Chai told the defendant to pay for delivery first and after the goods arrived in Australia, the defendant would be paid HK$3,000 to HK$5,000.

(v) Gwai Tiu Chai told the defendant that he had given instructions for the goods to be put in a hotel and defendant was to go there to collect the goods.

(vi) The defendant was to go to the 21st or 22nd Floor of the hotel alone where he would find a red bag between two lifts in which there would be two boxes which the defendant was to pick up.

(vii) The defendant did as instructed. He did not open the boxes.

(viii) The defendant found it strange why the person looked for other people to send parcels and why he did not do it himself. But he was told by Gwai Tiu Chai that it was inconvenient.

(ix) He did not know Gipson Chan, the recipient of the parcels.

(x) When asked whether he was worried about what the goods were, he said he did not think about it but had imagined it might be a bomb or stolen goods.

According to Senior Inspector Li Wah-sze, a drug price assessor, the average retail price of methamphetamine hydrochloride as at July 2015 was HK$289 per gramme, giving a street value to the total seized drugs, in the quantity of 7,340 grammes under Exhibit P1 and P20, of HK$2,121,260.

The defendant now admits that when he delivered P1 and P20 to DHL, he knew that they contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.

By way of personal background, the defendant is 25 years of age. He had received education up to Secondary Form 3 level in Hong Kong. Prior to his arrest, he had work as a financial investment agent for around two years. Prior to that, he had work as a bartender, a kitchen worker and an estate agent. At the time of his arrest, he was living with his girlfriend at a rented unit in Mong Kok.

The defendant has one previous conviction for possession of a dangerous drug, for which he was put on probation for 12 months.

By way of mitigation, Mr Wong Po-wing submitted that the defendant was misled into committing the offences by a friend. I was also told that the defendant’s mother is deaf and dumb. The defendant is indeed very remorseful for having committed the offences.

A letter written by the defendant was handed up to the court. The contents of which have been duly noted. However, as it has been pointed out by the courts on many previous occasions, personal and family circumstances of a defendant will offer little mitigation in a serious case of drug trafficking, such as the one before the court today.

In the present case, the narcotic involved in Count 1 is 1,400 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The narcotic involved in Count 2 is 1,200 grammes of the same drug.

This is a case where different quantities of narcotics were seized in the course of an enforcement operation and separately charged. Having regard to the proximity in time in respect of the commission of the two offences, clearly, they fall to be considered together.

In my view, this is a case where I should consider the defendant’s sentence from the point of view of the total quantity of the dangerous drug (ie 2,600 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride) rather than the individual smaller quantities.

In HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, the Court of Appeal held that for trafficking in amounts of 600 grammes and over of the ‘Ice’ drug, the proper tariffs to be imposed after trial are the same tariffs as are prescribed in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 for those quantities of heroin.

In the Abdallah case, it was held by the Court of Appeal that for trafficking in between 1,200 grammes to 4,000 grammes of heroin, the guideline starting point after trial should be 23 to 26 years’ imprisonment.

In my view, based on the total quantity of the narcotic involved (2,600 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride), the appropriate overall initial starting point for sentence in the present case should be 24 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

The defendant was caught trying to dispatch the drugs from Hong Kong to Australia. For the international element involved, the initial starting point should be enhanced by 2 years [see: HKSAR v Abdallah 1 supra, at paragraphs 42 and 43].

This takes the overall starting point up to 26 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

I shall give the defendant the full one-third discount for his guilty plea from the overall starting point of 26 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. This results in a total sentence of 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

In order to achieve that appropriate totality of sentence of 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, I order as follows.

(i) In respect of Count 1, for the quantity of narcotic involved, I adopt the starting point of 23 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. After affording the defendant a one-third discount, the sentence on Count 1 is 15 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

(ii) In respect of Count 2, for the quantity of narcotic involved, I adopt the starting point of 23 years’ imprisonment. After affording the defendant a one-third discount, the sentence on Count 2 is 15 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

(iii) 2 years of the sentence on Count 2 is to run consecutively to the 15 years and 8 months’ sentence on Count 1. This results in a total sentence of 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.