HKSAR v. YUEN TSZ YEUNG

HCCC 330/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 330 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant, Mr Yuen Tsz-yeung pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

The particulars of offence are that the defendant on the 12th day of February 2015 at Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, New Territories in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 4,492 grammes of a solid containing 2,173 grammes of ketamine.

Facts Admitted

On 12 February 2015, police officers stopped and searched the defendant who has just arrived at Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan by taxi, and found inside the rucksack he was carrying 18 transparent plastic bags containing 4,492 grammes of a solid containing 2,173 grammes of ketamine.

The defendant was arrested and cautioned. Under caution, he asked for a chance and admitted that he had agreed with someone to deliver ‘K Chai’ for a reward of $1,000. A Samsung and a Xiaomi mobile telephones were found on the person of the defendant.

According to the taxi driver, the defendant boarded the taxi at about 9.30 pm at Langham Place, Mong Kok, to go to Pat Heung where the defendant collected a rucksack from a private car there. The defendant then went to Fu Shin Estate Market in Tai Po on board of the taxi where he handed something from the rucksack to someone. The taxi then went to Union Hospital, Tai Wai where the defendant twice handed something from the rucksack to two different persons. The taxi then went to Hoi Shing Road where the defendant was arrested.

The retail value of the ketamine was estimated to be HK$539,000.

In a video-recorded-interview subsequently conducted, the defendant stated, inter alia, that he was to deliver the 18 packets of dangerous drug inside his rucksack which he had collected from a place in the New Territories for a reward of $1,000 he was to receive. He refused to disclose the particulars of the person who had instructed him to do so. He did not know the exact type of dangerous drugs inside the rucksack. The person to whom he would deliver the dangerous drugs would call him at his Xiaomi mobile telephone. The defendant only went past Hoi Shing Road when he was arrested.

Criminal Record

The defendant has one previous conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse entered on 27 November 2008 for which he was put on probation for 12 months.

Mitigation

The defendant is aged 24, educated up to Form 3 and obtained a certificate in plumbing and pipe setting from the Institute of Vocational Education. His parents were divorced when he was one-month old and he had been under the care of his grandmother. His mother has remarried and the defendant seldom sees her and he has lost contact with the father. He has worked as a plumbing and piping worker with a number of companies earning about $9,000 a month. He contributed about $5,000 to his grandmother as living expenses.

In 2014, he quit the job and engaged in selling electronic parts until he was arrested. He was induced by his friends to try ‘Ice’ after he changed job and became hooked, consuming about 5 grammes of ‘Ice’ a month costing about $2,000. He was heavily in debt and was lured by a person by the name of “Dark Feather” to deliver the dangerous drugs for $1,000 each time and discount for purchase of dangerous drugs.

On the day in question, he collected the rucksack and some stuff for Dark Feather’s friend at Pat Heung. Dark Feather did not tell him the amount of dangerous drugs inside the rucksack. He was also misled by Dark Feather that the sentences for trafficking in dangerous drugs are the same as those in possession of dangerous drugs.

Counsel for the defendant submits to court a mitigation letter written by the defendant in which the defendant expresses his remorsefulness for committing the offence and regrets for making his family worried. He has made reflection during the incarceration of the present case. He asks for leniency so that he can be released early to look after his grandmother and to contribute to society. He grantees that he will become a law-abiding citizen.

Counsel for the defence says that the defendant has provided information to the police but there is no need to adjourn the sentencing pending the outcome of police investigations.

Counsel cites the authorities of HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin [2013] 1 HKLRD 627 and HKSAR v Chow Yau Ching [2014] 2 HKLD 639 for the reference of the court and asks the court to adopt a starting point of 18 years’ imprisonment.

Sentence

The Court of Appeal in the case of Secretary of Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323 laid down sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine. According to it, for a quantity of more than one kilogramme of ketamine, the starting point is 14 years’ imprisonment or more. In Sin Chung Kin, the case cited by the defence counsel, it was said that for a quantity of 2 kilogrammes and 3 kilogrammes of ketamine, the starting points are no less than 18 years and 20 years’ imprisonment. In Chow Yau Ching, which is also cited by the defence counsel, the Court of Appeal said that for trafficking in 2,810 grammes of ketamine, the starting point of 19 years and 9 months’ imprisonment was neither excessive nor wrong in principle.

The amount of ketamine involved in the present case is 2,170 grammes. Having considered the authorities and the circumstances of the case, the court adopts a starting point of 18 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. Giving credit to the defendant for his plea of guilty, the court sentences him to 12 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

Should the information provided by the defendant to the police prove to be fruitful, the defendant can appeal to the Court of Appeal for a reduction of sentence out of time.