HKSAR v. Yu Ngai To

Read the full judgment text of HCCC 184/2023 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 27 March 2024.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.HCCC 184/2023[2024] HKCFI 1205
Court
High Court CFI
Date27 Mar 2024
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCC 184/2023

[2024] HKCFI 1205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 184 OF 2023

________________________

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Yu Ngai-to  

________________________

Before:  Hon Andrew Chan J
Date:  27 March 2024 at 9.48 am
Present:  Mr Kong Pak-lim Glen, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
  Mr Wong Yun-wah Gordon, instructed by Peter K H Wong & Co, assigned by DLA, for the accused
Offence:   Trafficking in dangerous drugs (販運危險藥物)

________________________________________

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

_______________________________________


COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

In the early hour of 19 November 2021, police officers entered the defendant’s apartment for investigating a suspected burglary incident. They intercepted a schoolmate of the defendant leaving the building.

Upon entry into the apartment, police officers suspected that dangerous drugs may have been stored in the apartment and started a house search. Subsequently, 35.19 grammes of cocaine and 229.06 grammes of ketamine were found in a number of plastic bags. In addition to that, electronic scales and packaging machine were also seized.

Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was instructed by his schoolmate to store, package, and deliver those dangerous drugs. By the time of his arrest, he had not received any rewards.

The defendant is now 20, single, educated up to Form 2 level. He has one similar trafficking record in 2019 and was released from correctional institution in 2020.

Mitigation letter from the mother has been produced. In essence, the mother asked for leniency on his behalf. I understand the mother’s wish. However, I am bound by the guideline set down by the Court of Appeal. Further, this is not the first time that the defendant has committed the same offence. Chance has been given in the past. It seems that he did not treasure the chance given.

Counsel from both sides have kindly agreed that the notional starting point for trafficking in the two dangerous drugs based on the quantity alone would be between 109 months and 115 months’ imprisonment. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the defendant, 109 months will be adopted as the notional starting point based on quantity alone.

The defendant in the present case did not act simply as a courier. He was responsible for safekeeping, repackaging and delivering the dangerous drugs in question. In return, he would be financially rewarded. Given his role, his past criminal record, an additional 11 months will be added, making a total of 120 months.

The defendant will be given the full one-third discount for his earliest plea.

In conclusion, for the offence the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to 80 months’ imprisonment, that is 6 years and 8 months.

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case