HKSAR v. YEUNG CHI HONG

DCCC 943/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 943 OF 2014

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1. The defendant, Yeung Chi Hong, is a 23 years old young man with five previous convictions for possession of dangerous drugs. He pleaded guilty before me to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs. This case concerned 17.29 grammes of ketamine and 0.99 gramme of cocaine.

2. The facts as admitted by the defendant reveal that at about 7:45 pm on 8 September 2014, police officers were patrolling in plainclothes at the staircase No 16, 2nd Floor, Tsz Wan Shan Shopping Centre, Tsz Wan Shan, Kowloon.  They spotted the defendant acting suspiciously.  The defendant was told to stop by the officers.  He attempted to escape but was eventually intercepted by the officers for a search.

3. Inside the right pocket of his trousers, the officers found two plastic bags containing the ketamine in question and two plastic bags containing the cocaine in question.

4. When the drugs were found, the defendant told the officers on the spot that he was helping someone to deliver the dangerous drugs seized.  The defendant was arrested.  Under caution, he asked the officers not to arrest him as it was Mid‑Autumn Festival.  He further stated that he delivered the dangerous drugs for someone else because he was in need of money.

5. In his subsequent cautioned video-recorded interview, the defendant claimed that he bought the ketamine and cocaine earlier from an unknown man in Mongkok at the price of $2,200.  He then took a minibus to Tsz Wan Shan Shopping Centre.  He later changed his version that the dangerous drugs seized were for his own consumption.

6. At the material time, the defendant possessed the dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

7. The defendant first transgressed the law in 2008.  He had been convicted on five previous occasions for possession of dangerous drugs. 

8. The antecedent statement of the defendant shows that the defendant was born in China.  He came to Hong Kong in 1994 and is now 23 years old.  He was educated up to Form 1 standard.  He was unemployed when he was arrested. The defendant is a drug addict and he resided with his family members before his remand.

9. Mr Hui in mitigation told me that the defendant was brought up in a normal family.  After the defendant left school, he had worked as a cook, a transportation worker and a salesman.  The defendant is very fond of ice-skating.  In 2012 to 2014, he worked as an ice-skating assistant.  He regularly attends ice‑skating classes.  Apart from ice-skating, he also plays piano.  He contributes $3,000 for the maintenance of his family monthly. 

10. Unfortunately, in year 2007, he became a drug addict.  As revealed by the criminal record of the defendant, he has five previous convictions for possession of dangerous drugs.  He had been sentenced to drug addiction treatment centre. Mr Hui told me in September 2013 the defendant was sentenced to drug addiction treatment centre and was released in March 2014.  He was subject to one-year supervision.  However, in July 2014, in a random urine test taken, traces of ketamine and cocaine were found in the urine sample of the defendant.  So, as a result, the defendant was recalled to the drug addiction treatment centre.

11. The present case took place in September 2014.  Mr Hui submitted that a small amount of the drugs involved in the present case was intended to be consumed by the defendant.  Mr Hui submitted a mitigation letter written by the defendant.  Mr Hui submitted the case HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin & Another CACC 80 of 2003 in support of his submissions that in the present case, the court should adopt the combined approach when approaching the drugs in question.  He also submitted the case of HKSAR v Wong Wai Hong CACC 213 of 2013.  The drugs involved in Wong Wai Hong were also ketamine and cocaine.

12. In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind the nature of the drugs in question and the quantity of the drugs.  I have also borne in mind all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Hui. 

13. This case concerned 17.29 grammes of ketamine and 0.99 gramme of cocaine.  In sentencing the defendant, I shall adopt the combined approach as set out in the case Yip Wai Yin CACC 80 of 2003.  Of the two kinds of dangerous drugs in question, ie ketamine and cocaine, cocaine is more potent in nature.  For trafficking in 0.99 gramme of cocaine, applying the tariffs as set down in Lau Tak Ming, a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.  But I cannot ignore the presence of 17.29 grammes of ketamine in the present case.  Indeed, the presence of 17.29 grammes of ketamine is significant.  Bearing the quantity of the ketamine in question, I would enhance the sentence by 2 years and 3 months.  In other words, I shall adopt a starting point of 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, ie 51 months.

14. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge.  He is entitled to the customary one-third reduction for his guilty plea.  That would bring his sentence down to 34 months.

15. Mr Hui told me in mitigation that the defendant intended to consume a small part of the dangerous drugs in question.  The defendant is a drug addict.  As confirmed by the criminal record of the defendant, he had been sentenced to drug addiction treatment centre on some occasions.  I accept what Mr Hui told me, ie that the defendant intended to consume a small part of the drugs in question, and for that, I shall allow the defendant an additional discount of 6 months.  That would further bring the sentence down to 28 months’ imprisonment.

16. Apart from the guilty plea of the defendant and that the defendant intended to consume a small part of the drugs found on him, there is no other mitigating factor that can further reduce the sentence I am to pass on the defendant.  For the reasons given, for the offence in question, I sentence the defendant to 28 months’ imprisonment.