HKSAR v. YAN PUI CHI

HCCC 96/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 96 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

Yan Pui-chi, you have, today, pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs which was 95 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride or ‘Ice’ as it is commonly called. You are formally convicted upon your plea and I vacate the trial dates accordingly.

You were arrested and cautioned for that offence in the early hours of 20 October 2015, when you were stopped next to your car at On Leung Lane, Yuen Long. At that time, you were carrying a small brown paper carrier bag which had within it a blue LED light box, and within that, there was a bag of ‘Ice’. All 95 grammes in one clear plastic bag, not split into smaller amounts for immediate onward sale or use. Although you said, at the time, that it was all for your own consumption and not for sale, that cannot be the case because you have now pleaded guilty to trafficking.

According to your account in the VRI, Mr Yan, you were purchasing just 7 grammes of ‘Ice’ for HK$1,000 that evening from someone called “Man To” and you had been observed picking up the drugs by the police. You now accept that that was not the truth. You said that you consumed about a gramme daily. That would have been enough for a week if that had been the truth and that was what you had picked up. But you actually picked up 95 grammes of ‘Ice’. That was what was found in your possession that morning, not 7 grammes.

The street value of that ‘Ice’ in October 2015 was $30,652 and not HK$1,000.

You were found to have $3,571 on you at the time of your arrest but you said that this was from your earnings as an LGV driver earning about 30,000 per month. And you also told the court that you are 45 years old and divorced with two daughters of 23 and 25 who are currently working in sales but you have had very little to do with them.

You do also have a 7-year-old son from another partner who is raised by your sister and to whom you pay $10,000 per month, even though your current partner works only part-time for $5,000 to $6,000 per month. That says, Mr Yan, a lot about the kind of man you are. Your son cannot have seen very much of you in his life as you have spent quite a part of it in prison and you will do so again.

You have a criminal record and some of those matters involve drugs. Two of them involve trafficking in dangerous drugs, one in 2005 when you received 6 years’ imprisonment and one in 2011 when you received 6 years and 4 months. Your last discharge from prison was on 26 February 2015 and you were arrested for this offence on 20 October of the same year. Neither of those sentences deterred you because here you are again, Mr Yan, for trafficking in dangerous drugs.

Mr Woon, on your behalf, says that you intended part of what you purchased that night to be for yourself and the rest for social consumption with your friends. There is absolutely no evidence before me to suggest that that is the case and you declined my invitation to hold a Newton hearing. The evidence which I have before me and which you have accepted suggests the opposite, and that is that you are in the business of dealing drugs.

The relevant sentencing guideline for the offence of trafficking in ‘Ice’ is HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691. For trafficking in between 70 grammes and 300 grammes of ‘Ice’, the starting point after a trial would be in the region of 11 to 15 years. For trafficking in 95 grammes of ‘Ice’, the starting point would therefore be 11 years and 3 months.

But you have two previous convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs and therefore I am going to enhance that sentence by a further 3 months to mark the fact that you appear to be a recidivist who has not learnt from the court’s previous efforts to deter you from further offending. That would make a sentence of 11 years and 6 months.

You will of course receive a one-third discount. Even though your plea was not entered at the earliest opportunity, you fall to be dealt with on the law as it was before the recent decision in HKSAR v Abdul Makidu Abdulkarim [2016] 5 HKLRD.

As a consequence, you will now go to prison for 7 years and 8 months.