HKSAR v. HO CHI YEUNG

HCCC 314/2017
[2018] HKCFI 127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 314 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant has pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 247 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 241 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. He has also pleaded guilty to a 2nd charge of trafficking, namely 1,784 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1,714 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The facts are very simple. In that, the defendant was seen on 23 March last year at about 10.20 pm in the vicinity of the Mikiki shopping mall in San Po Kong. He was holding a paper bag and was observed to be acting nervous and furtive. Police stopped him and inside the paper bag were found plastic bags containing the drugs in the 1st count. He was arrested and cautioned and he said that he was going to sell the drugs in order to earn medical expenses for his father. He also honestly revealed to the police officers that he had taken the drugs from a premises in Yu Yee Mansion and he was willing to lead the officers there.

So on the same day, using keys found on the defendant, entry was gained into the premises at Yu Yee Mansion and inside the room was found the drugs which is contained in the 2nd count. Also found were an electronic weighing scale and piles of transparent resealable plastic bags amongst other things. The defendant readily admitted that these drugs were for him to sell to earn money. The room in which the drugs were found was rented by the defendant since 11 March last year.

The total amount of drugs found would have a street value of about $572,742.

The defendant is aged 26 and had a spent conviction so he is to be treated as a person of clear record. The real mitigation in this case is actually his timely plea, and therefore, he is entitled to the one-third deduction. It is sad that for a young man of his age, he will be spending a long time in prison.

Mr Lo has said everything he could possibly say in mitigation. I no doubt accept that the defendant was earning money to try and alleviate the burden on his family with his father having fallen ill after an accident and his mother also suffered a physical injury in the course of her work. However, that is not an excuse because this is the type of people that these drug traffickers use, people who are in need of money or who are greedy for easy money.

Drug trafficking in a very serious offence in Hong Kong and we have to protect the society in Hong Kong particularly young people from drugs. I also am impressed by the Chaplain’s letter that the defendant is remorseful and is going to better himself during his time in prison. Also the defendant himself has suggested that during his term of incarceration, he will take the opportunity to study and perhaps learn a good skill so that when he comes out, he can contribute not only to society but also to his family.

I accept the defendant is remorseful. He has shown his remorse from the beginning by his early confession to the police by honestly indicating to the police where he had stored the rest of his drugs. However, as Mr Lo has pointed out, the defendant himself is also aware of the sentencing guidelines we have for trafficking in methamphetamine hydrochloride.

In the case of Tam Yi Chun in [2014]3 HKLRD 691, the Court of Appeal had said that for trafficking in over 600 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the guideline sentence should follow that in the case of Abdallah [2009]2 HKLRD 437. I am grateful to Mr Leung for providing the case of Abdallah which was decided in 2009 and where for trafficking in between 1,200 to 4,000 grammes, the guideline sentence would be 23 to 26 years.

The total amount of drugs in the two counts amount to 1,955 grammes. So I will sentence the defendant in this manner.

For the 1st count, the starting point sentence would be 6 years’ imprisonment and giving him one-third off, will result in 4 years’ imprisonment.

On the 2nd count, the starting point sentence would be 23 years and with one-third off, would result in a sentence of 15 years 4 months.

However, I will deduct the 4 months, making it 15 years because as I have said the defendant himself led the police to the drugs in the 2nd count. So the sentence on the 2nd count will be 15 years.

And then considering the totality principle, I will make both counts concurrent. So the defendant will go to prison for 15 years.