HKSAR v. Yiu Man Kit

HCCC 326/2017

[2018] HKCFI 427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 326 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

Defendant, you pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs before a magistrate at the Eastern Magistracy on 4 September 2017. As a result of your plea of guilty, you have been committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

You have admitted, on 11 November 2016, at the Liberte in Lai Chi Kok, Kowloon, you unlawfully trafficked in 4,789 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 4,681 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. This drug is commonly known as “Ice”.

On the day in question, at about 7.15 pm, you drove a car into the carpark at Liberte. At that time, police officers were making an observation upon you. After parking your car, you alighted and stood behind the boot. You were seen to be holding a transparent bag in your hand. Declaring their police identity to you, you immediately dropped the bag and attempted to flee. After a brief struggle, you were restrained.

Inside the boot of the car, the police found one opened carton box. Inside the box were 28 plastic bags containing the drugs as stated in the charge. There was also bamboo charcoal found, which was used to eliminate smells.

Upon arrest and under caution, you stated, “I owed other people money, and then I helped other people in carrying the ‘Ice’ only”.

In the video-recorded interview, you said, inter alia, that you needed to earn quick money, and you were to be rewarded for this job in the sum of $3,000. You knew that what was in the 28 packets was “Ice”. The estimated street value of the drugs was $1,604,315.

Defendant, you are 36 years of age, and you have five previous convictions, two of which are for possession of a dangerous drug. Your most recent conviction was in 2006, for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, for which you received a sentence of 1 month’s imprisonment, suspended for two years.

You had committed this offence during the period of suspension. In respect of that matter, your counsel, Mr Gordon Wong, says he has nothing to say about that.

I have received three heartfelt letters from yourself, your sister and your wife. You have reflected upon your grave mistake, and you realise, as a result of the commission of this offence, you will lose the time you spent with your very young son and elderly parents.

Both your sister and your wife have also made very heartfelt words to say that they feel that they have committed this offence with you in that they were not able to watch over you. They feel responsible as well. They both realise now that due to the pressure your wife particularly feels that she may have placed upon you, you had the need to earn quick money. All three of you have expressed deep remorse for your wrongdoing and asked this court to release you as early as possible, so that you can turn anew. In that way, you can carry on with your responsibility to be a useful son and father.

As Mr Wong, your counsel has said on your behalf, your strongest and most powerful mitigating factor is your early plea of guilty.

The “Ice” that you were trafficking in was a very large amount. The leading tariff case for “Ice” is that of Tam Yi Chun. However, for amounts of over 600 grammes, the same tariffs are that as prescribed by Abdallah. For this amount of “Ice”, in following the tariff guideline laid down in Abdallah, had you been convicted after trial, I would have taken a starting point of 26 years’ imprisonment. Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, that term shall be discounted by one-third, and you shall be sentenced to 17 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

As you committed this offence whilst your suspended sentence was still active, I will activate the suspended sentence. However, in following the rationale in the case of R v Arthur Smith & Ors [1981] 3 CAR 201, when a very long sentence (such as what I have passed,) there is no useful purpose in increasing the length of the total sentence, therefore, for the short sentence of 1 month’s imprisonment, although it is activated, I shall order that term to run concurrent to your present term. That means, defendant, for clarity, that you shall be sentenced to the same term, that is, the term of 17 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.