HKSAR v. POON SHI YIN

HCCC 303/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 303 OF 2014

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

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

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

COURT: You had pleaded guilty and admitted the facts of two offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs, the first involved 240 grammes of a solid containing 220 grammes of cocaine, and the second, 1,090 grammes of a solid containing 1,010 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride, and also included in that offence was 690 grammes of a solid containing 650 grammes of cocaine.

The total narcotic involved in all matters here I calculate to be 1,880 grammes.

What happened is as follows. At about 2030 hours on 25 January 2014, police on a surveillance operation saw you walking out of Chung Hing Lau, 22 Nam Kok Road, Kowloon City. You were searched in a rear lane of Nam Kok Road and a plastic bag with suspected cocaine was found in your front‑left jacket pocket.

You were arrested and cautioned for trafficking in dangerous drugs, and you admitted a man called Peter had asked you to go upstairs, and that is Chung Hing Lau, to collect a packet of “coke” for delivery. Four keys, four mobile phones and $30,000 in cash were found on you also.

You took police officers to Room 3 of Flat A, 2nd floor of Chung Hing Lau using various keys and a password. There, police found drug manufacturing paraphernalia and two plastic bags, one of which contained powder and one crystalline substance. These were later found to be cocaine hydrochloride and cocaine.

Under caution you denied involvement in manufacturing dangerous drugs but admitted responsibility for taking the bag of white powder up to the premises and delivering it to Ho Lek.

This means you admitted taking the cocaine hydrochloride to be used to manufacture cocaine, and then taking the cocaine from the premises.

Subsequent analysis shows the following:

(a) the plastic bags seized from you in the street contained 240 grammes of a solid containing 220 grammes of cocaine;

(b) one plastic bag seized from room 3 contained 1,090 grammes of a solid containing (1,010?) grammes of cocaine hydrochloride;

(c) the second plastic bag contained 690 grammes of (a solid?) containing 650 grammes of cocaine;

(d) the various items of paraphernalia were seized that contained traces of cocaine.

In January 2014, the estimated street value of all of the cocaine was $1,216,440, and the cocaine hydrochloride, $1,055,120.

You admit to 12 previous convictions on 10 occasions, none of which are similar. You admit the antecedents statement which tells me you are 38 years old, educated to Form 3, and in fair health. You have previously worked in transportation and in restaurants. At the time of these offences you were unemployed. You are single, residing with your parents and three younger brothers.

Mr Boyton entered further mitigation on your behalf, and you provided me with a written statement of mitigation which I have read and considered.

The approach that Mr Boyton urges upon me is to gather all the dangerous drugs together to come to a total amount and sentence on that basis, and that is entirely his right basis to do so.

Approximately 1.9 kilogrammes of narcotics places it within the range of 23 to 26 years.

As well as your plea of guilty, Mr Boyton urges upon me a further discount because of your assistance to the authorities in terms of leading to the second part of narcotics. He points out that whilst you do have a bad record, this is the first time you have been involved in dangerous drugs, and I accept that.

The following sentences will therefore be imposed.

On the 1st charge, this is within the range of 12 to 15 years, I take a starting point of 12 years and reduce it to 8 years.

The 2nd charge falls within the range of 23 to 26 years. I take as a starting point in this case of 23 years being towards the bottom of the tariff. That will be reduced to 15 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

The total imprisonment that I would take as a normal starting point would have been one of 15 years and 8 months, but I am going to give an extra 8 months’ discount because of the assistance to the authorities by leading them to the second amount of narcotics. Therefore, the second sentence will be served in this way: 7 years will be consecutive, and 8 years and 4 months will be concurrent. That gives a total of 15 years’ imprisonment overall.

So to recap, to be entirely clear that is correct.

On the 1st charge you go to prison for 8 years; on the 2nd charge you go to prison for 15 years and 4 months: 7 years being consecutive, and 8 years and 4 months being concurrent - a total of 15 years’ imprisonment.

(Discussion re exhibits not required)

Court adjourns - 10.10 am

Court resumes - 2.32 pm

Accused present. Appearances as before.

COURT: Good afternoon, I have called you back out in excess of caution because Correctional Services are unhappy with the sentence to this extent, that the first sentence was one of 12 years, reduced to 8 years; the second sentence was one of 23 years reduced to 15 years and 4 months: 7 years was to be served consecutively for the first sentence, making it 15 years; and 8 years and 4 months concurrently.

Now the problem that Correctional Services have, and I don’t see it as a problem, is that because that concurrent sentence is more than the first sentence they suggest that he would have to serve 15 years and 4 months, which is not my intention. I do not think that is right. But to make sure that that does not happen so that, basically, your client does not get an administrative extra four months I am going to change the sentence so that the overall sentence remains one of 15 years.

But I am just going to - as I say, out of total excess of caution - the first sentence will remain, the second sentence I take as a starting point of 23½, that is then reduced to 15 years and 8 months. I then give the 8 months’ discount for the assistance rendered. That makes a sentence of 15 years: 7 years will be consecutive to the 8 years on the 1st charge, that is 15 years; and 8 years will be concurrent to both - in the one. So we stay at 15 years. Is that entirely clear because I do not want to come back again?

COURT: So it stays at 15 years. Is that clear now, Mr Boyton?

MR BOYTON: Yes, my Lord.

Court rises - 2.36 pm

4 August 2015