CRIMINAL CASE NO. 448 OF 2011
COURT: The defendant, Mr Yeung, was caught red-handed with the drugs the subject of this charge, and the evidence of trafficking could not be clearer.
The defendant had the good sense to tell the truth when he was spoken to by the police, but unfortunately he later changed his mind and thought he could get away with what he had done by having the admissions he made to the police excluded in a voir dire.
In doing so, he wasted three clear days of court time, when another case could have been heard.
In this way, he also threw away the chance of earning a full discount for a timely plea of guilty by telling a silly story about the premises being someone else’s divan and about how he was forced into making a false confession.
This is now the fourth day which has been occupied by hearing this case, which, in normal circumstances, would have taken about an hour.
Nevertheless, by pleading guilty, you do earn some credit, albeit credit which is reduced for not having entered your plea of guilty at the start of this trial.
Now, you have not previously been in trouble and you are 35 years old.
On the other hand, you were addicted to “Ice” at the time of your arrest and had, according to the antecedent history at any rate, been addicted to “Ice” for five years.
In court, during your evidence in the voir dire, you said you had been an addict for only one year, and today in mitigation I hear that it was for only two years, but I can make it quite plain that I discount the evidence you gave at the voir dire as being more or less entirely false.
The penalties for trafficking in “Ice” and cocaine are well known and you have obviously been advised of them.
For 21.39 grammes of “Ice” in a crystalline solid weighing 22.56 grammes worth $15,837, it seems to me, under the guidelines in the Attorney-General v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125, there should be a sentence of 7½ years of imprisonment after trial.
For 1.15 grammes of cocaine worth $2,062, the guidelines in R v Lau Tak Ming & Anor [1990] 2 HKLR 370, as applied in Attorney-General v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342, seem to indicate a starting point of about 2 years’ imprisonment.
The nimetazepam pills - 1,080 of them - are an aggravating factor. They had a street value of $32,400, but in the overall scale of things, these in the circumstances perhaps add not a great deal to the appropriate sentence after trial.
Nimetazepam has similar qualities to diazepam, and I have taken into account the helpful authorities set out at paragraph 504B in Hong Kong Archbold 2012 and also at pages 682 and 683 in Sentencing in Hong Kong (6th edition) by Grenville Cross and Patrick Cheung.
All in all, you were trafficking in $50,000 worth of dangerous drugs.
I note from your confession to the police that you were specifically targeting night clubs to make a living out of selling drugs.
These are exactly the sorts of places where people who are young are likely to be first introduced to dangerous drugs. You represented a serious menace to society while you were engaged in this dreadful trade.
Your counsel has addressed me on a thoroughly realistic basis and I do propose to take the combined approach suggested under HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin & Anor [2004] 3 HKC 367.
The situation in this case is that there are three types of drugs all being trafficked at one time.
I will adopt a starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment.
Taking into account in your favour the late plea of guilty, this will be reduced to a term of 6 years, so that the sentence you will serve is one of 6 years’ imprisonment.