|
HCCC 126/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 126 OF 2014
-----------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
Yeung Shek-kin (D2) |
|
-----------------
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge Woo |
| Date: |
20 January 2015 at 2.24 pm |
| Present: |
Mr Phil Chau, on fiat, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Richard David Donald, instructed by Francis Kong & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the accused |
| Offence: |
(1) Trafficking in dangerous drugs (販運危險藥物) |
| |
(2) Possession of an identity card relating to another person (管有他人的身分證) |
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
COURT: Defendant, you have been found guilty of two counts, of the two counts on the indictment, namely, the 1st count, trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely, 105.07 grammes of a mixture containing 66.24 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, 11.51 grammes of a mixture containing 4.68 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 0.67 gramme of 6-monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride, 1.25 grammes of a powder containing 0.98 gramme of ketamine, 3.76 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 3.69 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 38 millilitres of a liquid containing 0.05 gramme of a solid containing methamphetamine and one tablet containing 0.01 gramme of midazolam.
The major dangerous drugs involved were the sum total of 116.58 grammes of mixtures containing 70.92 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, and the quantities of solid containing 3.74 grammes of “Ice”.
The 2nd count is the possession of an identity card relating to another person, Tam Chi-kuen.
The ketamine and the midazolam in the 1st count are soft drugs, and their quantities are small, and so I do not intend to impose a sentence in respect of them so as to make the overall sentence heavier than that justified for the heroin and “Ice” in the 1st count.
According to the sentencing guideline in respect of trafficking in heroin that is established in R v Lau Tak Ming & Others [1990] 2 HKLR 370, trafficking in 50 to 200 grammes of heroin should be punishable with 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment. Here, the quantity involved was 70.92 grammes, and the appropriate sentence should be around 8 and a half years.
Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 has set the sentencing guidelines in respect of trafficking in “Ice”. Up to 12 grammes, the appropriate sentence should be 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment. Here, the “Ice” totalling 3.74 grammes would attract a sentence of at least 3 years.
The defendant has a relatively long record of involvement in dangerous drugs. However, I do not think I shall pass a longer sentence on you for your previous criminal records. Your personal circumstances, on the other hand, do not provide any mitigating circumstances in this kind of serious offence.
Having stated the appropriate sentences for heroin and “Ice”, I have to consider sentence in totality. I consider all in all the appropriate sentence for the 1st count is 9 years’ imprisonment.
Regarding the 2nd count, possession of an identity card relating to another person, the customary sentence is 12 months’ imprisonment as the starting point upon a plea of guilty. See Cross & Cheung on Sentencing in Hong Kong, 6th edition, pages 669 to 700. 699 to 700, I think, yes. 699 to 700.
Mr Donald on your behalf has referred me to two cases on sentencing for possession of another person’s ID card, in particular, the case of HKSAR v Chan Man Mo. That is unreported, and the date of the judgment is 3 February 2000, a decision of Madam Justice Bokhary. And there, on page 12, the learned judge said, subparagraph (3):
“Where the offender’s presence in Hong Kong was legal at the time of his offence, he being neither an illegal immigrant nor an overstayer, possession of somebody else’s ID card which he found would merit a sentence of about 3 months’ imprisonment upon a plea of guilty.”
While you have not pleaded guilty to this count, you have after all not raised any challenge to the evidence of the police discovery of the identity card, Exhibit P1, in your home, and I consider that the appropriate sentence is 3 months’ imprisonment.
Bearing in mind the totality principle, I consider it appropriate only to make 2 months of the sentence for the 2nd count to run consecutively to the sentence for the 1st count. The eventual sentence I am going to impose on you is 9 years’ imprisonment for the 1st count and 3 months’ imprisonment for the 2nd count, 2 months of which shall run consecutively to the sentence for the 1st count, making a total of 9 years and 2 months’ imprisonment that you have to serve.
|