HKSAR v. Yu Fai Tat

Case No.HCCC 166/2014
Court
High Court CFI
Date13 Jan 2015
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC 166/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 166 OF 2014

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  YU Fai-tat (余輝達)  
------------------
Before: DHCJ Wilson Chan
Date: 13 January 2015 at 3.12 pm
Present: Mr Laurence Poots, on fiat, for HKSAR
  Cheung Kam-wing, Adonis, instructed by Yuen & Partners, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
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 was born in Hong Kong and is aged 45. He received education up to Secondary Form 1 level. He claims to be a transport worker before the time of arrest. At the time of the arrest he was unemployed, receiving public assistance.

The defendant has 22 previous convictions; 14 of which were for possession of dangerous drugs, and two for trafficking in dangerous drugs. His last conviction for trafficking was in 2009 for which offence he was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment.

In mitigation, Mr Adonis Cheung, on his behalf, submitted that the court should be as lenient as possible in dealing with the defendant.

The defendant has been convicted after trial on one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The drug involved is 66.70 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 65.60 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “ice”.

The Court of Appeal in the case of AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 has set out the tariffs for trafficking in the “ice” drug. For trafficking in between 10 and 70 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the proper sentence to be imposed after trial should be 7 to 10 years’ imprisonment.

In my view, following the guidelines in the Ching Kwok Hung case and based on the quantity of the narcotic involved, the proper starting point for sentence in the present case should be 9 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

The defendant is convicted after trial. There is no mitigating factor which warrants a reduction of sentence. The defendant is accordingly sentenced to 9 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.