HKSAR v. YIP YUEN MAN EPPIE

DCCC 1326/2024

[2026] HKDC 425

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1326 OF 2024

————————

————————

————————————————

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

————————————————

1.  Ms Yip pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  Particulars are that she, on 24 July 2024, outside No 139 Yee Kuk Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 7.48 grammes of a mixture containing 6.48 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

Facts admitted by Ms Yip

2.  On 24 July 2024, at about 9:40 am, police officers were conducting an anti-narcotics operation and they intercepted Ms Yip outside 139 Yee Kuk Street, Sham Shui Po.  Upon search, police found a recycle bag on Ms Yip.  The recycle bag contained one black plastic bag containing one plastic bag containing 50 packets containing a total of 7.48 grammes of a mixture containing 6.48 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (E1).

3.  A mobile phone and cash of $10,170.50 were also found on her.

4.  Under arrest and caution, Ms Yip admitted that she had purchased the dangerous drug.

5.  During a subsequent cautioned VRI, Ms Yip stated:-

(a) She knew E1 was a dangerous drug;

(b) This was the first time she bought dangerous drug from Ah Ming;

(c) She met Ah Ming 2 to 3 times but was unable to provide further details about him;

(d) Ah Ming said the heroin would be cheaper if purchased in bulk;

(e) When she asked to purchase 50 packets of heroin, Ah Ming offered to sell at $110 each, which was $20 less;

(f) At about 9 am that day, Ah Ming told her to look for a black plastic bag in the back alley of Yee Kuk Street;

(g) She found the black plastic bag and put it into her own recycle bag;

(h) She had no idea where Ah Ming was after she was intercepted by the police;

(i) She used to work as an office assistant but had been unemployed for over half a year; and

(j) She had no fixed place of abode now.

6.  The estimated street value of E1 was $3,829 in July 2024.

7.  Ms Yip now admits at the material time, she unlawfully trafficked in E1.

Criminal record

8.  Ms Yip has 14 previous convictions including one trafficking in dangerous drug (2019) and one possession of dangerous drug (1996).

Antecedents

9.  Ms Yip is aged almost 62 (60 at the time of the offence), educated to F3 level.  She claimed to be an office assistant at the time of arrest (but this is not consistent with what she said under cautioned VRI).  Ms Yip had no fixed place of abode.

Mitigation

10.  Mr Richie Lai of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Ms Yip.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

11.  Ms Yip is divorced since 1990.  Around August 2024, when she was in custody, she was admitted to hospital because of severe pain caused by kidney stone.

12.  Ms Yip entered a timely plea at the earliest opportunity.

13.  According to HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the starting point for trafficking in heroin of up to 10 grammes is 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment.  The arithmetic starting point should be 3 years 11 months’ imprisonment.

14.  The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 set out the six-step approach in sentencing for an offence of trafficking in dangerous drug.  So far as the second step of role and culpability is concerned, Mr Lai submitted that Ms Yip was no more than a mere courier or storekeeper.

15.  Mr Lai referred to HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau [2002] 1 HKLRD 69 on the principles of sentencing a defendant in a trafficking case where self-consumption of part of the dangerous drug is claimed in mitigation.

16.  Mr Lai then referred to HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang [2012] 2 HKLRD 1121 and HKSAR v Choi Chun Wo [2018] 5 HKLRD 717 to submit that where all or a significant proportion of the drug was intended for self-consumption, the ensuing discount would fall between 10% and 25% of the basic starting point, depending on circumstances.

17.  Mr Lai also referred to the guidance given by Yeung VP in the postscripts of HKSAR v Kong Tat Lung [2018] 5 HKLRD 635.  Mr Lai appeared to lay emphasis on para 70 being the last paragraph of the reported judgment:

“70. We must emphasise that…, it is entirely in the judge’s discretion according to the circumstances of each individual case whether to give the defendant any reduction in sentence and the extent of that reduction on the basis that the defendant intended to use a small part of the dangerous drug for his own consumption…”

18.  Mr Lai relies on the following facts to support self-consumption:

(a) There was only one plastic bag found carried by the defendant upon search, in which one type of drug was found;

(b) Ms Yip was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug in 1996; and

(c) Urine test on admission to remanded custody showed Ms Yip to be positive on opiate.

19.  Mr Lai asked for a sentence which would avail Ms Yip an opportunity to return to community early.

20.  Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Lai, after taking further instructions, submitted that Ms Yip had no fixed place of abode; that the money used for drug purchase and the money found on arrest were her savings and she carried them wherever she went.  Mr Lai further submitted that the majority of drug found was for Ms Yip’s self-consumption.

21.  Mr Lai informed the court in no uncertain terms that there would be no other evidence coming forward to support the claims that (a) Ms Yip’s role was no higher than that of a courier or storekeeper and (b) the majority of the drug found was for her self-consumption.

Sentence

22.  Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence.  A condign punishment according to weight trafficked is always called for.

23.  Ms Yip is a repeated offender but is some way from being a recidivist. I shall not enhance her sentence on this ground.

24.  I shall abide by the six-step approach as set out in Herry Jane Yusuph (supra).

25.  Under the tariff applicable to heroin, the arithmetic starting point is about 3 years 11 months as submitted.  I shall adopt that as the initial starting point.

26.  What is the role and culpability of Ms Yip?  The large amount of cash on Ms Yip before the alleged purchase did not tally with someone who had been out of a job for more than 6 months.  The large amount found on her on arrest together with the 50 packets of heroin led me to the irresistible conclusion that Ms Yip was an actual trafficker who was found with the proceeds of drug trafficking.

27.  For her role as an actual trafficker, I shall increase the starting point by 3 months to reach the final starting point of 50 months’ imprisonment.

28.  Although Ms Yip was tested positive for opiate and she has an aged possession conviction in 1996, it does not begin to show that a significant proportion of the drug found was for her self-consumption, let alone the majority of it.  I reject that claim totally.

29.  I refuse to exercise my discretion to grant her any sentence reduction for whatever small amount of the drug that might have been intended for her own consumption.

30.  Ms Yip pleaded guilty in good time earning for herself the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to warrant another sentence reduction.

31.  As an act of mercy, I shall disregard any decimal places in the calculation of sentence in terms of months.

32.  I am satisfied that the resulting sentence is a just, fair and balanced one.

(Ms Yip, please stand)

33.  The sentence for Ms Yip is 33 months’ imprisonment.