HKSAR v. YEUNG KWONG SHING

HCCC 304/2023

[2024] HKCFI 676

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 304 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

___________________________________

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

___________________________________

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug involving 286.69 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 276.96 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’.

On 5 July 2021, at around 5.55 pm, the defendant was sitting on the driver’s seat of a car with registration mark VP 541 which had stopped outside No. 247 Reclamation Street, Mongkok, Kowloon. He was being intercepted by police officers.

Upon a body search, a plastic bag containing 0.99 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.96 gramme of ‘Ice’; cash of HK$8,600; and the car key of the car was found.

Upon a car search, a total of 285.7 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 276 grammes of ‘Ice’ were found underneath the driver’s seat. Three mobile phones were found in the driver’s seat but that a large number of resealable plastic bags were also found.

The total estimated street value of the ‘Ice’ in this case is HK$189,789.

At all material times, the car was registered in the name of a car rental company. On 2 July 2021, the company received a request to rent the car from the defendant. On the same night, a rental agreement was signed and the car was passed to the defendant.

The defendant’s DNA was found on the steering wheel, gear lever and handbrake of the car, and the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the window frame and windowpane of the front offside and nearside doors of the car.

In the subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant said under caution that:

(1)  he was unemployed;

(2)  he had a habit of consuming ‘Ice’;

(3)  he rented the car from the car rental company two days before the arrest; and

(4)  other than him, no one had used the car since the day of rental.

The defendant admitted that at all material times, he knowingly possessed the drugs concerned for the purposes of unlawful trafficking.

The Defendant’s Background and Submission in Mitigation

The defendant was 62 years old on the day of the offence. He is now nearly 65 years old. The defendant received education up to secondary Form 5 level. He has worked in different fields in the past, including being a construction worker and a driver. The defendant’s wife passed away in 1995.

Due to the outbreak of the pandemic and the restrictions imposed, the defendant cannot make enough money to support himself and even lost his job as a driver. He was asked by a friend to deliver the drugs in question for money. The friend agreed to pay him after the completion of work, but he was arrested with the drugs and had not yet received any reward.

The defendant has a number of previous convictions, two of which concern trafficking in dangerous drugs. His last trafficking-in-dangerous-drugs conviction was December 2003.

Sentencing Principles and Tariffs

The sentencing approach in trafficking cases is set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. I therefore follow the six-step sentencing approach set out in that case.

The sentencing tariff for trafficking in ‘Ice’ is provided for in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691. For quantities of 70 grammes to 300 grammes, the sentencing band is 11 to 15 years’ imprisonment.

As for the role of the defendant, he said that he helped to deliver the dangerous drugs for a friend in return for a monetary reward. There is little to suggest that the defendant had any significant role beyond an ordinary courier. I will assess his culpability accordingly.

The starting point for trafficking 276.96 grammes of ‘Ice’ by a pure arithmetic calculation is 175 months, that is, 14 years and 7 months after rounding down. I cannot see any basis for departing from it.

In respect of the defendant’s prior convictions for drug trafficking, given that the most recent one had occurred more than 20 years ago, I do not propose to enhance the sentence further.

The only mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s guilty plea. He is entitled to a one-third discount off the starting point. This will reduce the sentence to 9 years and 8 months’ imprisonment after rounding down.

There are no other additional considerations that are relevant insofar as this case is concerned.

Conclusion

Defendant, please stand up. I will sentence you to a term of 9 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.