HKSAR v. YIP CHUN KIN

HCCC 387/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 387 OF 2014

_______________

_______________

_______________

S E N T E N C E

_______________

1. On 5 September 2014, the defendant was committed for trial to court of first instance on a single charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. He subsequently indicated that he would plead guilty to the charge which he has done today.

2. The particulars of the offence are that the defendant on 20 March 2014, at the staircase of the first floor of a shopping mall known as Infinity Eight, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 480 g of a power containing 380 g of ketamine.

3. The summary of facts admitted to by the defendant upon his plea of guilty can be briefly stated as follows.  On 20 March 2014 at about 8:10 pm the defendant who was in the company of a woman came to the attention of police officers during an anti-drug operation.  The defendant was observed holding a bag in his right hand which appeared to be full.  At the same time he was making a number of calls on his mobile phone.  The police officers approached him to make enquiries.  He was searched and found inside the handbag that he was carrying was a plastic bag.  A further examination revealed that it contained two smaller transparent resealable plastic bags each containing 240 g of a power of which 190 g was ketamine. 

4. The defendant was arrested and cautioned at the scene.  He said: “The goods are mine.  They have nothing to do with my girlfriend.  I only delivered these goods for ‘Hak Chai’ and charged him $300”.

5. The police officers then searched the home of the defendant and found inside his bedroom a cabinet in which were two electronic scales and a number of empty transparent resealable plastic bags.  The defendant admitted and accepted that he was trafficking in a dangerous drug.

6. The drugs seized had an estimated street value of $56,640.

7. The defendant is 19 years old.  Since 2008 he has been convicted of criminal offences mainly relating to assaults or breach of probation.  I note that he was last before the court in 2012, when he was ordered to attend a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. 

8. The defendant left school at an early age and since then has been mainly unemployed.  He is single and at the time of the arrest lived with his parents and two siblings in a public housing unit.  It is acknowledged that he has a drug addiction since 2010 and consumes ICE three to four times a month.

9. Mr Duncan Percy, counsel on behalf of the defendant submitted the mitigation that the defendant came under the influence of an older person known as “Hak Chai” who got him involved in his drug trafficking trade.  It was submitted that this was the second collection the defendant did for “Hak Chai”.  The first collection involved the defendant obtaining and keeping the two scales and resealable plastic bags found in the cabinet in his bedroom.  I do not accept this part of the mitigation and is apparent to me is an excuse to why the items were found in his bedroom which would indicate that he was much more involved than just merely collecting and holding the drugs for “Hak Chai”.  Also in mitigation, I have been informed of his family background and his personal circumstances.  He is a young man who left school at an early age and has not been able to secure permanent employment and instead has resorted to a life of crime which has cumulated in this offence. 

10. According to the tariff guidelines, a starting point after trial for traffickers in 380 g of ketamine is 9 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.  On a timely plea of guilty, a defendant is entitled to a reduction of one third to his sentence.  I am prepared to impose a starting point of 9 years’ imprisonment as urged upon me by Mr Percy in recognition of his young age and vulnerability as a result of his circumstances and situation.  It is hoped that the defendant will appreciate this additional reduction to his sentence and treat it as an incentive to improve himself and upon his release pursue a law abiding existence. Accordingly, I sentence the defendant to 6 years’ imprisonment.