HKSAR v. YIP YIU HUNG

HCCC 349/2018

[2019] HKCFI 792

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 349 OF 2018

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

Background and the Facts

On 5 November 2018, the defendant pleaded guilty at the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to sections 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. This morning, he confirmed his plea before me and accepted the Summary of Facts.

Briefly, on 10 January 2018, the police observed the defendant leaving the car which he had driven earlier. The police then intercepted the defendant but he tried to flee. After a brief struggle, the defendant was eventually subdued. A search of the defendant’s person revealed that he had, inter alia, cash of about HK$40,000, two mobile phones and a car key.

Using the car key seized, the police unlocked the car. Upon examination, one paper bag was found at the footwell of the front passenger’s seat. Inside the paper bag, there were two black plastic bags which then contained 10 other plastic bags with a total of 238.7 grammes of a solid containing 224.5 grammes of cocaine. In addition, a large number of empty transparent resealable plastic bags and an electronic scale containing traces of cocaine were found.

The estimated street value of the drug seized was about HK$252,000.

The Defendant’s Background and Mitigation

The defendant is aged 33 and is married with one daughter. He was educated up to Form 3 level in Hong Kong. After quitting school, the defendant had worked as a technician in a garage which was said to be owned by his father. The defendant got three previous convictions between 2010 and 2012. All were drug-related offences.

Mr Fong for the defendant submitted a letter written by the defendant himself and one written by his wife to the court. The defendant expressed remorse in the letter and his wife described him as a responsible husband who just foolishly committed the offence because of the eagerness to earn quick money.

In mitigation, Mr Fong drew the court’s attention to the fact that this is the first occasion when the defendant was convicted of trafficking-in-a-dangerous-drug offence. Mr Fong also emphasized that the defendant was truly remorseful and told the court that all his close family members were in court to support him.

The Sentence

In AG v Rojas [1994] 2 HKCLR 69, it was held that the guidelines for heroin trafficking laid down in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 were also applicable to the sentencing of cocaine trafficking. In the case of Lau Tak Ming, trafficking between 200 and 400 grammes of heroin will attract a term of imprisonment of between 12 to 15 years.

Having considered the facts of this case and the amount of cocaine involved, I am going to adopt a starting point of 12 years. The defendant pleaded guilty at the committal stage. I would give him a full one-third reduction in sentence for his plea.

Now, although the court is sympathetic to the plight the defendant’s family is now in, such should be a matter which the defendant should take into account before the commission of this offence and is not a matter in respect of which I should reduce sentence in this exercise.

In this case, there is nothing before me which would warrant any further reduction in sentence other than the guilty plea. The remorse prayed in aid by Mr Fong is already subsumed in that reduction given to the guilty plea.

12 years reduced by one-third is 8 years’ imprisonment and this is the term I impose on the defendant in relation to the trafficking-in-a-dangerous-drug charge to which he pleaded guilty.