HKSAR v. Ma Yuk Ting

Read the full judgment text of HCCC 115/2022 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 20 February 2023.

Case No.HCCC 115/2022[2023] HKCFI 869
Court
High Court CFI
Date20 Feb 2023
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCC 115/2022

[2023] HKCFI 869

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 115 OF 2022

________________________

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Ma Yuk-ting  

________________________

Before:  Hon Toh J
Date:  20 February 2023 at 9.50 am
Present:  Miss Sheroy Tam, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
  Mr Leung Chiu-lam Paul, instructed by Kwok, Ng & Chan, assigned by DLA, for the accused
Offence:   Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)

________________________

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 532.08 grammes of a mixture containing 448 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. The facts are not difficult in that on the day of the arrest, 25 March 2021, police officers were conducting an operation in Man Ying Building in Jordan, Kowloon, when they intercepted the defendant. And upon inquiry, the defendant disclosed that she lived in Room B on the 2nd floor and using her key, the police gained entrance to the room.

Upon an execution of a search warrant in the presence of the defendant, a red suitcase underneath the bed was found. And inside that suitcase were the drugs which is set out in the charge. Also found were resealable plastic bags, a hammer, spoons, a pair of scissors, electronic scale, sealer, plastic gloves.

And the room was subsequently found to have been rented by the defendant from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2022 and the defendant under caution admitted that the drugs belonged to her. However, she later on in the video-recorded interview refused to answer any more questions.

The estimated street value of the heroin seized is in the region of $645,413.

The defendant was aged 26 at the time of the offence and I am informed that she was a hairstylist and was good and diligent at her job. And unfortunately she developed a mild degenerative disc disease in her spine which hampered her physical condition as she could not stand for long periods of time. And thus her income was reduced.

And also, the fact is that because of this financial pressure on her and with the death of her father, she was helping family finances. So she was tempted to make quick money and therefore she committed the present offence.

And in mitigation, Mr Leung said that the premises were rented by her friend, someone called Shek Goh, who paid the money for the rent and also gave several thousand dollars to the defendant as a reward.

And the fact of the matter is, the defendant is no longer a teenager. She was 26 at the time. There are a lot of people in Hong Kong who fall into financial difficulties without succumbing to participating in this evil trade of drug trafficking. Of course, I appreciate all the letters which have been submitted from her friends and relatives testifying to her good character and her helpfulness and generosity. But however, that does not detract at all from the nefarious activity of drug trafficking.

The authorities in Hong Kong has been fighting a practically losing battle every day to stem the flow of drugs in Hong Kong, to the detriment of our society. And serious sentences have to be imposed to try and prevent people from indulging in this evil trade. So as Mr Leung correctly pointed out, the Court of Appeal has since 1990 in the case of Lau Tak Ming laid down sentencing guidelines for heroin trafficking. And for trafficking in the amounts of between 400 to 600 grammes, the recommended sentence is between 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Mr Leung very helpfully worked out that that means a starting point of about 16 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

Mr Leung pointed out that the defendant has given a non-prejudicial statement to the police. Well, no discount can be given for that unless the non-prejudicial statement was of practical use or helpful. And if it is not, then there is no sentencing consideration for just giving a non-prejudicial statement. So I am unable to work it into a factor of mitigation.

Having considered the fact that the defendant has a clear record, I will adopt the starting point of 16 years’ imprisonment. And I will give her the full one-third discount, reducing the sentence to 10 years and 8 months.

I/we certify that to the best of my/our ability and skill, the foregoing is a true transcript of the audio recording of the above proceedings
Jeremiah Barcena Castro
Date: 1 March 2023