HKSAR v. Yip Chun Lam

Read the full judgment text of HCCC 276/2023 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 18 March 2024.

Case No.HCCC 276/2023[2024] HKCFI 1202
Court
High Court CFI
Date18 Mar 2024
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCC 276/2023

[2024] HKCFI 1202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 276 OF 2023

________________________

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Yip Chun-lam  

________________________

Before:  Hon Andrew Chan J
Date:  18 March 2024 at 11.50 am
Present:  Mr Chan Hing-man Raymond, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
  Mr Tze Ying-kuen James, instructed by Betty Chan & 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 dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. He is committed to this court for sentence.

Summary of Facts reveals the following:

On 14 October 2021, police officers on car patrol duty along Tuen Mun Road noticed the defendant was trying to discard dangerous drugs from his car. The defendant was then intercepted by police officers. Four bags of dangerous drugs were subsequently found on the roadside. They contained 28.6 grammes of methamphetamine and 43.26 grammes of ketamine.

The street value was estimated to be around HK$69,000.

The defendant is now 31, single, educated up to Form 1 secondary school level. He has five criminal records, all unrelated to dangerous drugs. Prior to his arrest, he was a construction worker making 25,000 per month.

Mitigation letter from parents have been produced to this court. I have read your parents’ mitigation letters, they plead for leniency on behalf of the defendant. I understand their wish, however, I am also bound by the guidelines set by the Court of Appeal.

Counsel from both sides very kindly have calculated the length of imprisonment term under different tests. They came to the agreement that the sentencing term should be one between 8 years and 1 month and 8 years and 9 months.

Nothing in this case indicated that the defendant’s role was more than a courier and in light of that, 8 years and 1 month will be adopted as the starting point. A one-third discount will be given for his plea.

For the sole offence that the defendant stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 64 months’ imprisonment.