HKSAR v. WONG TIK CHUNG

HCCC 119/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 119 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The charge to which the defendant has pleaded guilty is trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

The particulars of offence were that on the 25th day of October 2015, at Customs Arrival Hall, Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point, New Territories in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 138.4 grammes of a mixture containing 89.6 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

You have also admitted the summary of facts prepared by the prosecution, and that was done before the magistrate. The summary of facts reads as follows:

“(1) At 1.05 pm, on 25 October 2015, at Customs Arrival Hall, Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point, the accused was intercepted for Customs clearance as he was entering Hong Kong.

(2) While an officer was conducting the search, the accused kept moving his body to obstruct the searching. Later, after the officer lifted the accused’s shirt, they found five packets of suspected dangerous drugs being wrapped around the accused’s abdomen and lower back with cling films and adhesive tapes.

(3) When asked what the substance was, the accused initially made no response but later said they were ‘Sei Jai’. Cautioned, he said the following:

“‘Sei Jai’” is “pak fan”, heroin, which he had been asked by a friend known as “Lo Yau” to deliver to someone.

After collecting the packets, he wrapped them on the person at a restaurant at Futian, Shenzhen.

He had been promised a reward of $3,000.”

(4) He gave Lo Yau’s phone number to the officers.

(5) He said he did not wish to participate in a controlled delivery.

(6) Two mobile phones were seized from him.

(7) He refused to answer questions in the subsequent video-recorded interview.

(8) The five packets of suspected dangerous drugs were later found to be a total of 138.4 grammes of a mixture containing 89.6 grammes of heroin hydrochloride which had an estimated retail value of HK$103.384 at the time of seizure.

(9) Travel movement record reveals that the accused departed for the mainland via Lok Ma Chau Control Point at 11.49 pm on 23 October 2015. He was arrested when he was returning to Hong Kong on 25 October 2015.

(10) A manual inspection of the accused’s two mobile phones found calls with Lo Yau between 17 October 2015 and 21 October 2015.”

According to the sentencing guidelines in respect of trafficking in heroin established in The Queen v Lau Tak Ming & Ors [1990] 2 HKLR 370, trafficking in 50 to 200 grammes of heroin is to be punishable with 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment.

Here, the quantity involved was 89.6 grammes and the appropriate sentence should mathematically be around 9 years. There was also an international element involved in this case as you were in a course of returning to Hong Kong after visiting the mainland. In fact, you were importing the dangerous drug into Hong Kong. This is an aggravating factor that enhances your sentence: see the case of HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun CACC 85/2014 decided on 2 July 2014 (unreported).

You have four previous convictions and none related to dangerous drugs. The four convictions took place in 1977 and 1995, over more than 20 years ago. Normally, I do not attach any weight to those convictions in aggravating your sentence, but I consider that a slightly lenient starting point should be adopted to show encouragement by the court.

However, for this kind of serious offence, personal circumstances will rarely have a mitigating effect on sentence. Apart from what I have said above and from your guilty plea, I am not able to see any other mitigating factor that can reduce your sentence.

Considering all the circumstances of this case, I adopt a starting point of 8½ years’ imprisonment. For the international element, I adopt an enhancement of sentence by 6 months’ imprisonment: see paragraphs 5 and 9 of the judgment in Chung Ping Kun’s case.

I, therefore, consider a global starting point of 9 years’ imprisonment as appropriate. I give you the full one-third discount for your guilty plea.

Therefore, I pass a sentence of imprisonment for 6 years on you.