HKSAR v. Yip Man Kong

Case No.HCCC 370/2010
Court
High Court CFI
Date26 Apr 2011
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC370/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 370 OF 2010

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Yip Man-kong  

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

Before: The Honourable Madam Justice M Poon
Date: 26 April 2011 at 11.30 am
Present: Miss Hermina Ng, SPP (Ag), of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr James Collins, instructed by the Legal Aid Department, for the Accused
Offence: (1) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
(2) & (3) Obstructing a police officer in the due execution of his duty (阻撓在正當執行職務的警務人員)

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, and two charges of obstructing a police officer in the due execution of his duty, contrary to section 36(b) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.

He was seen to receive a brown paper bag from another male, and when police officers tried to intercept him, he threw away the paper bag and intended to flee. A violent struggle ensued between him and two police officers, resulting in tenderness over one officer’s chest and tenderness over another’s right hand dorsum and scratch mark on his face.

After the defendant was subdued, he said that the drugs in the bag belonged to his friends, and he was taking it home for them.

On analysis, the drugs were found to weigh 989.30 grammes of powder containing 839.69 grammes of ketamine. The street value of the drugs seized at that time was estimated to be around $119,000.

The defendant is now aged 18, and he was 17 when he committed the present offence. He has two previous convictions, both drugs related. His last conviction was in July 2009. For a charge of possession of dangerous drugs, he was sentenced to the DATC. He was released from the DATC in November 2009, which is about five months prior to commission of the present offence.

By way of mitigation, I am told that the defendant comes from a low-income family. His education was interrupted as early as the age of 15, when he first transgressed the law. He now realises his deficiency, and, knowing that he would face a lengthy custodial sentence, he has expressed willingness to make use of his time in remand to better equip himself.

In sentencing the defendant, I have taken into account the nature of the offence, the drugs involved, its quantity, and the sentencing tariff. I have also taken into account the defendant’s guilty plea and mitigation forwarded, and perused letters in mitigation written by himself and his family members.

The present case involves 839.69 grammes of ketamine, and trafficking in that amount falls within the 600 to 1,000 grammes band in a tariff case, which attracts a starting point between 12 to 14 years’ imprisonment.

For the 1st charge - that is, the trafficking charge - I adopt a starting point of 13 years. He is given the full one‑third discount for his guilty plea, and is sentenced to 104 months. That is, 8 years and 8 months for the 1st charge.

In respect of each of Charges 2 and 3, I adopt a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment, reduced on plea to 2 months.

I have considered the totality principle. I order 1 month out of each of Charges 2 and 3 to run consecutively to the trafficking charge sentence, making a total of 8 years and 10 months’ sentence.