HKSAR v. Yuen Yu Kin

HCCC 188/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 188 OF 2014

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant was convicted by a jury of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

Evidence during trial reveals the following facts.

On the material day the defendant was seen walking up and down one pavement outside Yue Man Square Park. After wondering for a while, the defendant picked up a basketball from the pavement. When the defendant was leaving the scene with the basket ball, he was intercepted by police officers.

Inside the basket ball police officer found 0.96 kilogrammes of methamphetamine, “ice”. The street value was estimated to be HK$431,000.

The defendant is 59, a casual worker by occupation. This is, in fact, not the first time that the defendant had committed this offence. He has 16 conviction records; five related to trafficking in dangerous drugs. In 1997 the defendant was sentenced to 12 years by this court for trafficking in dangerous drugs.

The present offence took place on 19 December 2013. Although the guidelines laid down in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun CACC 524/2011 does not apply, it however provides a useful guidance. When one compares the new guideline to the guideline laid down in Attorney General v Ching Kok Hung, one can see there is an enhancement of 1 to 2 years in the new guideline, depending on the amount of drugs involved. Had the defendant been sentenced according to the new guideline, he would have received a sentence of 22 years based solely on the quantity.

Given what I have said above, the starting point based solely on quantity in this case is therefore set at 20 years’ imprisonment. But as I have pointed out, this is not the first time that the defendant had committed the present offence. It seems that all the past sentences have exerted little deterrent effect on the defendant. That in itself is an aggravating factor.

Having considered all the circumstances, I am of the view that the appropriate starting point in this particular case is one of 21 years’ imprisonment. The defendant is convicted after trial, no further discount can be given.

In conclusion, for the offence the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment.