HKSAR v. CHEUNG YUK SIM

HCCC 508/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 508 OF 2014

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

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

COURT:

Background and the facts

The defendantpleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug in the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts on 28 November 2014. This morning, she confirmed her plea and accepted the Summary of Facts.

Briefly, in the afternoon of 27 May 2014, customs officers saw the defendant, who was sitting in the rear passenger’s seat of a taxi, handing over a red plastic bag to a passenger sitting in the rear seat of another taxi. At the time, the two taxis were stopping side-by-side with each other.

Upon seeing that, the officers boarded a vehicle and tailed the defendant’s taxi. Later that day, the officers stopped the defendant when she alighted from the taxi. The officers then searched the backpack which the defendant was carrying and found the drug particularised in the count, that is, a total of 2.64 kilogrammes of a powder containing 1.64 kilogrammes of ketamine.

Upon enquiries, the defendant said the substance was “K Chai”. During a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant provided further particulars as to where she had obtained the drug and how she had delivered it. She also said that she would receive HK$350 as her reward for the delivery of each packet.

The estimated street value of the drug was about HK$322,000.

Mitigation

The defendant is now aged 16-years-and-a-half and she was approaching 16 at the time of the arrest.

Prior to the commission of this offence, she had no criminal conviction record. However, she had been twice given a Superintendent’s Discretion in October 2012 and April 2013 for matters including: taking part in an unlawful assembly, theft, common assault and wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm.

The defendant came from a single-parent family and was living with her mother at the time of the offence. She received education up to Form 1 level and was unemployed when she was arrested.

In mitigation, Miss Chan for the defendant told the court that the defendant was an underachiever, and she had twice repeated Form 1. Eventually, she quitted school and got a job in a restaurant. However, she was later sacked because of her poor performance.

Miss Chan also told the court that since the defendant’s mother worked as a sales lady, she did not have much time looking after the defendant. As a result, the defendant idled around a lot in the streets and mingled with undesirable peers.

Miss Chan said that it was under the influence of those peers, and in the hope of earning some quick money, that the defendant committed the present offence.

Letters from the defendant herself, her mother and a pastor were given to the court.

Miss Chan submitted that the defendant is now truly remorseful, and given the support she has, there stands a good chance that the defendant would turn over a new leaf. In the circumstances, Miss Chan urged this court to pass as lenient a sentence as possible.

The sentence

In SJ v Hii Siew Cheng & Anor [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in ketamine. For trafficking over 1,000 grammes of ketamine, a term of imprisonment of 14 years upward is called for.

Further, in the case of HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin [2013] 1 HKLRD 622, the Court of Appeal observed that the appropriate starting point for trafficking 2,000 and 3,000 grammes of ketamine should not be below 18 and 20 years respectively.

In HKSAR v Ng Hong Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 1017, the Court of Appeal considered a starting point of 16 years to be appropriate for trafficking in 1.7 kilogrammes of ketamine.

Having considered the facts of this case, and that a total of 1.64 kilogrammes of ketamine was involved, I am of the view that a starting point of 15 years is appropriate.

Taking into account the defendant’s background and her determination to mend her ways, I am prepared to give her a further reduction of one year on top of the one-third reduction for her plea.

Although the defendant is relatively young, she does not belong to the extreme youth category.

It is, of course, depressing to see a young person being sent to prison. However, the Court of Appeal has said time and again that for offences like trafficking in a dangerous drug, young age is not a mitigating factor. If it were otherwise, that would only encourage drug traffickers to make use of young persons to help running their drug business.

In this case, other than the matters that I have mentioned, there are no other grounds which would justify any further reduction in sentence.

Fifteen years reduced by one-third is ten years, further reduced by one year is nine years.

As a result, the defendant is to serve a term of 9 years for the offence to which she pleaded guilty.