HKSAR v. Ho Yuk Lun

HCCC 182/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 182 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant, who is now aged 33, is no stranger to the courts or indeed to trafficking in dangerous drugs. He has a bad record but, previously, he had served a sentence of 46 months for trafficking in ketamine. That was a sentence imposed in May 2010 and he was released in April 2012.

The present case arises from a raid on the defendant’s rented flat and what is revealed from that raid shows that the defendant has learnt nothing from his previous sentence for trafficking.

It was shortly after midnight on 26 June 2014 that a woman came out of the defendant’s flat in Castle Peak Road, she was immediately intercepted and as soon as she was she began to shout out very loudly. This brought the defendant to the door. When the police tried to enter the flat, he stopped them from doing so and closed the door.

The police through a broken pane in the glass section of the door could then see the defendant carrying some white substance into the toilet of the flat and not surprisingly they immediately broke down the door. There was a struggle inside and eventually the defendant was subdued.

There were two bags of drugs in the toilet itself, and there were other bags found in the flat and a couple of boxes as well all of which contained drugs. In addition, the police found a set of scales, a very large number of resealable bags, a calculator, and a notebook with names and numbers written down inside.

The defendant, both at the time of his arrest and later in the interview, took full responsibility for the drugs. At the time of the offence, the defendant was a drug addict and there was a small amount of ‘Ice’ found in the flat for which he has admitted in Count 2 to possessing for his own use.

As to the ketamine which was the remainder of the drugs, here the amounts involved were large and valuable. The ketamine weighed 874-odd grammes in a powder mixture of 1,483-odd grammes, and that was worth just over $175,000 on the street.

Mr Cheung has accepted that the guideline tariffs for trafficking in this kind of drug are set out in the Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 and again, correctly, he has identified the band into which this quantity of drugs finds itself, namely 600 to 1,000 grammes for which a sentence of between 12 and 14 years is suggested.

So it is that a proper starting point after trial for this amount of ketamine in my view would be 13 years and 3 months, increased by a further 3 months in view of the defendant’s previous record for trafficking which is clearly an aggravating feature of the case. I may add to that, that he was on bail at the time of his arrest for this offence, for another drugs offence.

Today, 22 months almost after the offence was committed, the defendant has indicated that he thought that an adjournment of sentence in order to give him time to find some additional material for his mitigation might help. Time has been given to him in order to outline what that might be, but on the information that I have received, it is quite plain that no sensible further adjournment should be granted. If the defendant is aggrieved by that, his course will be to take his complaint to the Court of Appeal.

The sentence you would have received after trial is one of 13½ years’ imprisonment. As it is, you have pleaded guilty, and under the present arrangements for sentence you are entitled to a full one-third discount despite the lateness on this plea. So giving you your full credit for your plea of guilty the sentence on you will be one of 9 years’ imprisonment. There will be a concurrent sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment on the 2nd count of the indictment. That means that your total sentence is 9 years.