HKSAR v. YIP LUNG

HCCC 178/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 178 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 994.82 grammes of a solid containing 578.10 grammes of ketamine. As to the 2nd count on the indictment, he had pleaded not guilty and that count is to remain on file and not to be proceeded with without the leave of the court.

The facts of the case show that on 27 June 2014, at about 8 pm, the defendant was seen walking towards the shopping mall in Tsuen Wan area. He was holding a bag and the police officers who saw him found that he was acting suspiciously, so they went up to intercept him. The defendant started a minor struggle and finally he was subdued and the bag removed from his hand, inside of which were found four transparent plastic bags containing white crystals, as well as a resealable transparent bag that contained nine resealable bags, each containing white crystals. He was also taken home for a home search. Nothing illegal was found at his home.

Upon analysis, the bags that were carried by the defendant showed the quantity of drugs which is reflected in the count to which he had pleaded guilty. This quantity of ketamine had a retail street value of HK$117,389.

The defendant is aged 32 and has five previous convictions, two of which were for possession of dangerous drugs. The defendant in fact had pleaded guilty before me on 10 May 2016, but the sentence was adjourned to today on the application of his counsel, Ms Lo. The defendant, I am told by Ms Lo in mitigation, is a young man who left school at the age of 16 to start working. Eventually, after his father’s death, he had the full responsibility of looking after his mother, who suffered from physical illness and also mental illness. He frequented cyber cafés when he started then to mix with bad peers and eventually was introduced to the world of dangerous drugs. He took cannabis, and later ketamine and “Ice”.

He has a fiancée who was pregnant and now he has a young child. So it appears from the mitigation of Ms Lo that he had since matured and realised that he has to take on the responsibility of being a good father and husband. This is reflected in the defendant’s letter to this court and also in a letter from a social worker, Miss Lo, who only came to know the defendant after his arrest for the present offence. Miss Lo has spoken in her letter of her impression that the defendant is now finally going to learn a lesson from this present sentence that he will be given and that he has adopted a more positive attitude to life and has offered encouragement in his letters to the young people who have lost their way in life. It is of course encouraging to learn this and hopefully the defendant will use his time in prison to learn a trade so that when he leaves prison, he can engage in a trade which will be able to allow him to raise his family.

However, this is a very serious offence and had this amount of drugs been successfully distributed into our community, many young lives and families would have suffered. So recognising this, as Ms Lo has pointed out, the Court of Appeal in the case of Hii Siew Cheng [2009] has laid down sentencing guidelines in respect of ketamine. For trafficking in 300 to 600 grammes of ketamine, the Court of Appeal suggested that a sentence of 9 to 12 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate.

In this case, the defendant was trafficking in 578.10 grammes of ketamine and which would put us into the category of 11 to 12 years’ starting point. I would adopt, in all the circumstances, an 11½ years’ starting point. I accept that the defendant may have taken a bit for his own self-consumption, although he did tell the police that in his antecedents statement he was addicted to “Ice”. So I will reduce the starting point to 11 years and because of the defendant’s early plea, thus saving the court’s time, and his remorse which is reflected in his plea, I am prepared to give the defendant the full one-third discount and so the sentence is reduced to one of 7 years and 4 months. So the defendant goes to prison for 7 years and 4 months.