HKSAR v. YEUNG MAN HIN

HCCC 288/2023
HCCC 289/2023
(Heard together)

[2025] HKCFI 4370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NOS 288 AND 289 OF 2023

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant faced a total of three charges. The 1st charge is attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug relating to an incident that occurred on the 17th day of May 2017 at Room 510 of the Dorsett Hotel in Kowloon, that he attempted to unlawfully traffic in 819.5 grammes of a solid containing 804.9 grammes of cocaine. To that charge he pleaded not guilty, and he was convicted after trial by the jury on 25 August this year.

The 2nd charge is a charge of criminal damage. The particulars of offence stated that on the 17th day of May 2017, outside Room 510 of the Dorsett Hotel, he, together with other persons, unlawfully damaged a door belonging to the hotel. That is the door of Room 510.

The 3rd charge is a charge of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause, and the particulars of

offence stated that he, being a person admitted to bail and without reasonable cause, failed to surrender to custody as had been appointed by a court on the 11th day of October 2017. In respect of this matter, he was re-arrested on 13 July 2022. That means the period of escape lasted for about four years and nine months.

To the 2nd and the 3rd charges he pleaded guilty before a magistrate on 21 September 2023 and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

According to the Summary of Facts to which he agreed in support of the 2nd and the 3rd charges, and the facts revealed by the evidence disclosed in the trial of the 1st charge, sometime shortly after midnight on 17 May 2017, at about 00.20 am, a male surnamed Yau and a male surnamed Tang rented a hotel room, Room 510, at the Dorsett Hotel in Kowloon.

Later, at around 2.49 am on the same day, Yau and Tang were stopped by the police at a roadblock when they were travelling on a taxi that was being driven by Tang, and Yau was being conveyed as a passenger. A quantity of cocaine was found in the taxi as well as on the person of Yau.

Shortly afterwards, around 26 minutes later after the interception, at 3.15 am the defendant came to the Dorsett Hotel’s front desk and requested to visit Yau Kwan‑ho at Room 510. The manager of the hotel did not allow him to go up for security reasons, even though the defendant was able to provide the full name of Yau and the phone number. The defendant made a phone call to Yau, but Yau did not answer the call.

Later, at 3.25 am and 3.35 am respectively, the defendant made two more attempts to go up to the room, but again he was refused by the manager of the hotel.

At 4.15 am on the same day, according to the CCTV recording, the defendant and two unknown males successfully went up to the outside of Room 510. They attempted to kick open the room’s door but failed to open it. They then left the hotel.

At about 5 am on the same day, the manager of the hotel saw the defendant and other unknown males at the ground-floor lift lobby of the hotel. Suspecting that they were going to Room 510, the manager asked a security guard of the hotel to go up to the 5th floor to have a look.

Meanwhile, according to the CCTV recording of the hotel, the defendant and another male went up to the 5th floor and they went to the corridor outside Room 510. The defendant was seen in the CCTV to have entered the smoke door on the 5th floor while an unknown male stayed on the corridor. Shortly afterwards, two other males arrived.

So the defendant was recorded as going up to the 5th floor together with one male, and then two other males arrived. There were a total of four persons including the defendant. One of the unknown males took a crowbar from the smoke door and successfully prised open the door of the room. The defendant and one of the unknown males entered the room while another unknown male stayed on the 5^th floor corridor, and the fourth unknown male left the hotel.

Coming back to the security guard. He had arrived on the 5th floor and saw a male lingering at the corridor of the 5th floor. When the security guard walked towards Room 510, that male walked up to the door of 510, kicked and pushed the room’s door. The defendant and one unknown male immediately rushed out from Room 510, and the three of them, (the defendant and two unknown males) immediately left the 5th floor. They left the hotel at about 5.06 am.

The manager of the hotel went up to Room 510 to have a look. He found that the door of the room had been prised open, the wooden door frame was prised apart, and the door frame strike plate fell onto the floor. The door lock was damaged and the wooden door sustained some black stains. The total repair costs of the door and the door frame was around HK$3,000. This is the subject matter of the 2nd charge of criminal damage.

Upon entering the room, the manager found that there were signs of ransacking in the room. On one of the beds there were two empty electronic balance boxes without the electronic balances inside. There was also a sealing machine underneath the bed. The manager found that the electronic safe in the room was removed from its original position. It was locked automatically since there were two failed attempts to open it.

The manager opened the safe with a key and found therein five electronic balances, numerous empty resealable plastic bags and one large resealable plastic bag, containing 35 small resealable plastic bags containing a total of 819.5 grammes of a solid containing 804.9 grammes of cocaine. This is the subject matter of the 1st charge.

The manager took out all the items from the safe, put them on the bed and called the police.

Around 6 am, when the police were conducting investigation at the room, the defendant arrived at the hotel lobby together with another male and a female. That male went up to the counter to inform the hotel staff that he came to make compensation for the damage of the door of Room 510. He claimed that he know Yau, the person who booked the room. The defendant stated that he came to look for his girlfriend.

Suspected that they were involved in the incident, all three of them were arrested by the police. Later the hotel staff (the manager and one of the staff at the counter) recognised the defendant was the person who came to the lobby and asked to go up to Room 510. They identified him in a subsequent identification parade.

The defendant’s fingerprints were found on the screen of a remote control and his palm prints were found on two mirror walls inside Room 510. His fingerprint was also found on a black plastic bag that was placed on the floor next to one of the beds.

A crowbar was found by the police behind the smoke door that was opposite to Room 510.

Subsequently, the defendant was charged with the offence of criminal damage and he appeared at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on 19 May 2017. He was released on court bail. However, he failed to appear in court for mention on 11 October 2017s and the police was unable to locate him despite repeated attempts.

On 13 July 2022, the defendant surrendered himself to the Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station for another case, and he was later re-arrested for the present case. So the period of his abscond for the present case was four years and nine months. This is the subject of the 3rd charge.

The defendant now admits that at the material time, he had destroyed or damaged the door of Room 510, intending to destroy or damage the door or being reckless as to whether the door would be destroyed or damaged. He also admits that he had, without reasonable cause, failed to surrender to custody as had been appointed by the court.

The defendant is now 25 years of age. He was 17 years old when he committed offences 1 and 2. He had received Form 1 education. At the time of his arrest back in 2017, he was unemployed. He was single and lived together with his family members.

He is a person with some criminal convictions. According to his criminal record, on the 29th day of December 2014, when he was 15 years old, he was convicted of the offences of theft (shoplifting), criminal damage, two charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and another charge of common assault. For those offences he was sentenced to a probation order of 18 months, and the first 9 months were to be spent in the Tuen Mun Children and Juvenile Home.

His last criminal conviction was that on the 15th day of February 2023, that was after he was re-arrested for the present case, he was convicted of acting as a member of triad society and sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment. At that time, he was 23 years old.

In mitigation, counsel Mr Edward McGuinniety acknowledged the seriousness of the 1st charge of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug. He brought to this court’s attention that the defendant was only 17 years old at the time of the offence, and his role was fairly low. He was clearly a low‑key member in a group of persons who were engaged in the trafficking of drug.

Mr McGuinniety submitted that the more usual aggravating features involved in the trafficking of drug is absent in this case. A total of 804.9 grammes of cocaine narcotic is involved. He asked this court to adopt the revised guideline for trafficking in cocaine as stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifong [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 earlier this year. He asked this court to deal with this young man in the most lenient manner possible.

In respect of the 2nd and the 3rd charges, he asked this court to take into account his pleas of guilty at an early stage. Counsel rightly acknowledged that the criminal damage was aggravated by the use of a crowbar in prising open the wooden door. That means the damage was more serious in nature than some other offences of the same kind. More than one person was involved in the commission of the offence, and the damage of the door cannot be said to be minor because the repair costs was about HK$3,000.

In respect of the 2nd charge, counsel urged this court to impose a concurrent or largely concurrent sentence to the 1st charge. In respect of the 3rd charge, he also asked this court to impose a concurrent or a largely concurrent sentence.

I shall now come to the sentence for the 1st charge of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug. A total of 804.9 grammes of cocaine narcotic was involved. According to the revised guideline stated by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Huang Ruifong, trafficking in between 500 to 1,500 grammes of cocaine narcotics would attract a starting point of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment.

This case involves 804.9 grammes of cocaine narcotic. So on a mathematical calculation, the starting point would be one of 17 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

In respect of the role played by this defendant, I accept counsel’s submission that he played a fairly low role in respect of his involvement in this syndicate’s activities. As the Court of Appeal had pointed out, the mathematical calculation of the starting point is appropriate for persons who are at the bottom of the drug-trafficking hierarchy, and I do accept that this defendant was at the bottom of the drug-trafficking hierarchy.

There are no other aggravating or mitigating factors because the defendant was convicted after trial, so he does not have the benefit of an early plea of guilty and he does not have the benefit of the one-third discount.

I do bear in mind that he is charged with the offence of attempting. That means he was not successful in his trafficking of the dangerous drug, in that he and the other male were not able to open the safe to retrieve the drug inside the safe.

In respect of his young age at the time of the offence, the fact that he was already 17 years old does not make him a person of extreme youth, and I will not give him any fuether discount in respect of this matter.

He is convicted after trial. Taking into account the fact that the offence is one of attempting, I consider that the appropriate starting point for the 1st charge is one of 17 years’ imprisonment. So, in respect of the 1st charge, there being no other mitigating factor, he is sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment.

I shall now come to the 2nd charge of criminal damage. There is no tariff for this kind of offence because the factual matrix for the commission of the offence could vary from one case to another. The maximum penalty for criminal damage for conviction upon indictment is one of 10 years’ imprisonment.

When sentencing the defendant in respect of this offence, I will exclude the fact that he had already been convicted of criminal damage at the time of 15 years of age because he was so young then. I will just disregard his previous conviction for a similar offence of criminal damage back at the time when he was 15 years old.

The only mitigating factor is that he pleaded guilty to the offence at an early stage. Taking into account all the circumstances of the offence including the fact that the door was being prised open by the use of a crowbar, more than one person was involved and the extent of damage caused to the door, I consider that appropriate starting point would be one of 9 months’ imprisonment.

The defendant pleaded guilty at an early stage and he is entitled to the full one-third discount. So, in respect of the 2nd charge, I will sentence him to 6 months’ imprisonment.

The damaging of the room door was part and parcel of his activities or conduct in order to retrieve the drug from inside Room 510. It was committed as part of the course of conduct in the commission of the first offence. Taking that matter into account, I will order the sentence in the 2nd charge to be served totally concurrent to the sentence in the 1st charge. So the total sentence in respect of the 1st and 2nd charges would be one of 17 years’ imprisonment.

Coming to the 3rd charge of failing to surrender to custody. He had escaped for a period of about four years and nine months. He had jumped court bail at that time. Again, there is no tariff for this kind of offence because the factual matrix may vary from case to case. The maximum penalty for conviction upon indictment is that of a fine and 12 months’ imprisonment.

I take into account the length of the period that he escaped and also the purpose of the escape was to avoid the imprisonment or the punishment for the present case. In respect of his surrender to police, I take into account the fact that he surrendered after four years and nine months apparently for another case, even though it was obvious that he would be re-arrested for the present case as well after he surrendered to the police.

Taking into account all the circumstances of the case and the matters raised in mitigation, I consider that the appropriate starting point is one of 6 months’ imprisonment.

The defendant pleaded guilty to this charge at an early stage. As such, he is entitled to a full one-third discount. So, in respect of the 3rd charge, he is sentenced to a total of 4 months’ imprisonment.

The offence of failing to surrender to custody is separate and distinct in nature and its sentence should be totally consecutive to that of the other offence or offences. However, taking into account the fact that he is already serving a lengthy sentence for the 1st charge of attempting to traffic in dangerous drug and also the principles of totality, I order 2 months of the sentence in the 3rd charge is to be served consecutively to the total sentences of Charges 1 and 2. That means the other 2 months of the 3rd charge is to be served concurrently with the sentences in Charges 1 and 2.

So the overall sentence for Charges 1, 2 and 3 would be 17 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

This is the sentence I impose on the defendant.