HKSAR v. LEUNG HO YUEN

HCCC 368/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1862

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 368 OF 2018

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

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

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

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 at Eastern Magistracy and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence on 19 November 2018.

The defendant agreed the Summary of Facts. On 24 April 2018, at about 6.15 pm, defendant was intercepted at the lift lobby of Kwun Tong Industrial Centre, Kwun Tong, Kowloon. When he was intercepted, it was found that in his black bag that he was carrying, by Customs officers, there was one plastic bag containing 530 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 510 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’.

The estimated street value of that amount of ‘Ice’ at the time was $295,740.

Under caution, the defendant claimed he was ignorant as to the contents of the bag but he was delivering it to a room in that building and he knew the passcode to that room. He now admits that he possessed the dangerous drugs seized for the purposes of unlawful trafficking. At the time of his arrest, he was also in possession of one mobile phone and $4,125.

At the time of this offence, he was 17 years old. He was born in Hong Kong on 12 March 2001.

The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty. I have heard in mitigation that the defendant had a clear record, was born in Hong Kong and left school after completing Form 3. That was a conscious decision because he wanted to join the workforce to ease his mother’s financial burden.

The defendant’s parents divorced when he was young in 2004. His mother has essentially single-handedly raised the defendant and his younger sister. His mother can only work in labour-intensive jobs and as a result, over the years her health has suffered. The defendant wanted to enter the workforce to help the family with expenses. When he realized that he had insufficient education and therefore an inability to find a well-paid job, he enrolled in a course at the Vocational Training Centre in 2017. He only studied there for a couple of months. He did not complete the course. This decision to join the VTC was his downfall because there he met undesirable peers who he thought were friends. They appeared to have more money than him and he was offered an opportunity to make easy money by delivering dangerous drugs. He was offered $8,000 and he accepted this offer. He now deeply regrets that decision.

I have heard in mitigation that his mother and younger sister are very supportive and both write to say that the defendant is very caring and protective towards them. They have visited him regularly since he has been in remand from the date of his arrest.

There are several other mitigation letters put forward by defence counsel which I have taken into account. They relate to his sporting achievements and attitude at school as well as his volunteering with the Tai Po Youth Association.

It has been stressed that the defendant was young when this offence was committed, and I am told he has learnt his lesson and will not reoffend.

Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence. On conviction on indictment, a person is liable to be fined up to $5 million and to imprisonment for life.

The sentencing guideline for ‘Ice’ is found in the authority of HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691 and the starting point for trafficking between 300 and 600 grammes is 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Therefore, mathematically speaking, the starting point for trafficking in 510 grammes of ‘Ice’ is 18 years and 6 months.

I stress that the defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty and Mr Ma has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant.

Defendant, please stand up. I have taken into account the facts of this case, mitigation put forward, as well as the defendant’s age and background at the time of this offence. I have also considered the defendant’s own letter of mitigation and other letters of mitigation. 17 years old is young, but the defendant cannot be described to be of extreme youth at the time of this offence. The fact that he was 17 and had a clear record does not carry much weight when the offence is this serious and the quantity of ‘Ice’ is significant.

Nonetheless, after careful consideration, I will take a starting point of 18 years and reduce it by 6 years to reflect the full discount the defendant is entitled to for his plea at the earliest opportunity. After that discount is applied, the defendant is sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for this offence. Do you understand?

ACCUSED: Yes.