HKSAR v. YEUNG SEE MAN

HCCC 351/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 351 OF 2014

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

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

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

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

COURT: You have pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine hydrochloride, the combined narcotic content of which was just over 1,105 grammes. At street prices, this was worth approximately $603,000.

Each of the counts on the indictment relates to roughly half a kilo of this drug. So far as one of the counts is concerned, the drugs in question were being taken out of the flat to supply to someone. The other half kilo was being left in the flat for a future transaction.

You were obviously well trusted to be given the custody of such a large and valuable quantity. This is a highly addictive drug.

Your record confirms that amongst your six previous drug-related convictions, trafficking in dangerous drugs has become a way of life for you. You have got two previous convictions for this. The most recent of those was on 18 November 2009 when you received a sentence of 6 years 8 months’ imprisonment. You had only, about three months before the commission of these offences, been released from prison.

In Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung HKLR [1991], page 125, the dangers of this drug are set out. So also are the recommended sentencing tariffs. Those tariffs rise to 18 years for 600 grammes and upwards for greater amounts. Since then, the Court of Appeal, in a judgment dated 9 June 2014, in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun, CACC 524/2011, has revisited the tariffs in order to cover those traffickers who deal in larger amounts of this drug than were envisaged in 1991.

You are extremely fortunate that the tariffs laid down in that case are not applicable to these offences as the date when these offences were committed was some months prior to the decision in Tam Yi Chun.

Taking the Ching Kwok Hung guidelines, I consider that a starting point after trial of 20 years’ imprisonment is certainly merited, but in view of your record for trafficking, I propose to increase the starting point by a year. It is plain that you have learned nothing from your past sentences and the public deserves a rest from your activities.

It is to your credit that you have pleaded guilty to these offences. Even though you only did so on the first day of trial, having at first pleaded not guilty on the same day, I have indicated that I will give you full credit for your plea.

What is most certainly not to your credit is the fact that you chose to blame your co-defendant for having been involved in trafficking with you. The evidence that you chose to give against her was in total contradiction of everything you had told the police following your arrest. Your story, or should I say change of story, in the witness-box was utterly unconvincing and it was no surprise to find that you told many palpable lies which were exposed for what they were in cross-examination.

Even small points in your evidence were untrue. These were designed to condemn your co-defendant in the eyes of the jury, such as the lie you told about how you had both been smoking 'Ice' before leaving the flat immediately before your arrest. You described in detail the glass bottle that you said you had been using for smoking and then, when you realised that no such item was ever found at your flat, you changed your story completely to say that you had been using a drinks carton. You said that you had disposed of that outside the flat but there were no less than nine police officers on surveillance that evening and some of them were very close to the front door. You would have been seen if you did what you said you did.

Your whole non-prejudicial statement which you made in order to provide a case against your co-defendant was littered with lies. Some of them were very obvious and others emerged in the course of your evidence as you tried to paint a picture of yourself as the junior partner in trafficking.

Just to take one example of this, you said in your statement, at paragraph 5, that your co-defendant, at around 11 pm on 20 March 2014, had taken a kilo of 'Ice' to your flat which you both then split up. You added that the drugs were obtained from your co-defendant’s friend called Lo Shu and that you had gone out and come back in a taxi for that purpose. As you later had to admit, the taxi story was a complete invention and one reason we know that is that the police had seen you arrive back with your co-defendant in your newly purchased Mercedes.

As for Lo Shu, you gave a detailed description of that person, including his tattoo, in your interview with the police. What you told the jury in your evidence was entirely made up by you because you said you had never met Lo Shu.

At the time of these offences, you were in a lesbian relationship with your co-defendant. In fact, you had been to a shopping mall to have dinner and to buy clothes. That is what you were doing that night. The drugs had been purchased, as you told the police in your original statement, from Lo Shu, by you, a week before.

The law does not permit me to increase your sentence further on account of all the lies you told against your co-defendant. All I will say is that the prosecution’s decision to call you was misconceived and ill-considered. I am very surprised that the police who took your statement were unable to see that it was a tissue of lies. Of course, your co-defendant was an easy target because you knew, as is the fact, that she was an 'Ice' smoker. Something in your relationship with your co-defendant obviously broke down.

At one stage in these proceedings, there were three letters received by the police which purported to have come from your co-defendant. Taking them at face value, they gave you a lot of help because they seemed to exculpate you on one of the counts on the indictment. What is perfectly obvious is that they were not written by your co-defendant. The author of those letters remains unknown, but you were the only person who could have benefited by what they said. The prosecution, at least on this matter, rightly chose to place no reliance on those letters whatsoever.

In due course, the co-defendant was, overwhelmingly, I suspect, acquitted. By the end of the evidence, there was very little doubt that she could not possibly be convicted on the evidence that you provided. So it is a case where I can say with complete confidence that you deserve no credit whatsoever for the evidence you gave against your co-defendant. The real truth was what you told the police at Counter 333 in your interview. In fact, it summarises what you said all the way through the interview, and I quote your words:

“Actually, Ah Sir, it has nothing to do with her, because I have known this girlfriend for only one to two months. Well, at that time, since she and I had bought some clothes in Sin Tat Plaza, I requested her to go to my residence with me to put down the stuff. Well, after we had put down the clothes, we tried on the clothes, I mean the ones we had just bought. Well, and then she saw me walking out of the doorway intending to leave. I was locking the door. She just helped me to hold it in her hand. In fact, she had completely no idea that there were dangerous drugs inside. I want to make a clarification, right, she has completely no idea that I trafficked in drugs.”

It seems perfectly clear that you were motivated by malice when you decided to implicate your co-defendant and, in addition, hoped that you might be able to reduce your sentence considerably.

At the end of the trial, it was suggested on your behalf that you might have information to give to the police. I have no doubt you do have information but you certainly did not give it to the police. You are utterly manipulative and your credit is worthless.

Quite properly, the charges on the indictment were separated into two counts. The 1st count reflects the amount of just over 550 grammes of 'Ice' which was only being carried by your co-defendant while you locked the doors. The 2nd count relates to all the remaining drugs including those hidden in your underwear.

I propose to take a starting point on each of these counts of 17½ years’ imprisonment and I propose to increase that to 18 years on each count in view of your previous record for trafficking. These sentences on each count will be reduced to 12 years on account of your pleas of guilty, and on the 2nd count, I shall order that 2 years of that sentence should run consecutively.

Would you please stand. The overall sentence that you receive is one of 14 years’ imprisonment.