HKSAR v. Yip Shing Tin

Case No.HCCC 301/2023[2024] HKCFI 2237
Court
High Court CFI
Date17 May 2024
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC 301/2023

[2024] HKCFI 2237

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 301 OF 2023

________________________

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Yip Shing-tin  

________________________

Before:  Hon Andrew Chan J
Date:  17 May 2024 at 10.10 am
Present:  Mr Raymond H M Chan, SPP(Ag) of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
  Mr Ho Wai-kin Victor, instructed by Robinsons, Lawyers, 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 to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

On 8 September 2021, the defendant was intercepted by police officers for a search as he was seen dropping a wrapped tissue onto the ground.

Inside the wrapped tissue, police officers found 26.4 grammes of ‘Ice’, methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Under caution, the defendant claimed that the ‘Ice’ in question was for his self-consumption.

The street value was estimated to be about HK$21,000.

The defendant admitted in the Magistrates’ Court that he was in possession of the ‘Ice’ for the purpose of trafficking.

The defendant is 35, educated up to Form 7 level. Prior to his arrest, he was an electrician and a painter. He has 13 criminal records, two relating to the possession of dangerous drugs.

Mitigation letters from the defendant, his elder brother and employer have been produced. They essentially ask the court to pass a lenient sentence. I note their wish, however, I am bound by the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal.

I also note that the defendant committed the present offence just two months after his discharge from prison. I further note that upon admission to the Correctional Services Institution, the defendant was found to have amphetamine in his urine.

The notional starting point for trafficking in 26.4 grammes of ‘Ice’ is one of 96 months’ imprisonment. Mr Ho on behalf of the defendant stated that 6 grammes of the ‘Ice’ was for the defendant’s own consumption. Hence, a small discount should be given. The difference between 20 grammes and 26 grammes is only a 4 month difference in terms of the length of the sentence.

This court of course also takes note of the fact that possession of 6 grammes of ‘Ice’ would also itself attract a short sentence.

Apart from the defendant’s earliest plea, there is little mitigation in this case.

Given what I have just indicated about the self-consumption aspect of this case, an overall starting point of 93 months will be adopted.

For the sole offence the defendant stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 62 months’ imprisonment.