HKSAR v. Li Chun Kin
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 689/2015 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine hydrochloride or usually known as “Ice” (1 st Charge) and possession of equipment fit and intended for the smoking of it (2 nd Charge).
Cites 2 cases
|
DCCC 689/2015 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 689 OF 2015 -----------------------------------
---------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- Chargesand facts 1.The Defendant pleads guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine hydrochloride or usually known as “Ice” (1st Charge) and possession of equipment fit and intended for the smoking of it (2nd Charge). 2.When his cohabitant stepped out from their home in a public housing unit, she was stopped by the police. By dint of a search warrant, the police searched their home and found the following items, among others:
3.In the subsequent interviews under caution, the Defendant said as follows:
Defendants’ personal background and mitigation 4.He is 39 years of age, educated up to P. 2 level. He is on the point of divorce from his wife, who lives in Mainland China and works as a saleslady. They have a 13-year-old son, taken care of by the Social Welfare Department. His cohabitant is not working. At the time of arrest, he earned $13,000 per month as a printing worker. 5.He had a number of criminal convictions, including 3 for simple possession of dangerous drugs (sentenced in 1996, 1997, and 2012 respectively), and 1 for possession of equipment fit for smoking dangerous drugs (sentenced in 2012). 6.The Ice found in his home could last more than a month. He had no preset quantity for treating his friends. Sentencing considerations 7.As stated in AG v Ching Kwok-hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125, later emended in HKSAR v Capitania [2004] HKCU 926, trafficking of “Ice” of up to 10 g shall warrant 3 – 7 years' imprisonment. 8.The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Chow Chun-sang[2012] 2 HKLRD 1116 stated that the starting point could be lowered by 10% - 25% where part of the drugs was for self-consumption. Sentencing this Defendant 9.I take 6 ½ years as the starting point. I mark it down to 5 years as the revised starting point in view of his case, which I accept to be true, that an indefinite part of it was for self-consumption. One-third off for the guilty plea, the sentence is 3 years and 4 months for the 1st Charge. 10.I take 12 months as the starting point for the 2nd Charge. One-third off for the guilty plea, the sentence is 8 months for the 2nd Charge. 11.He has no other mitigating factors. The sentences shall be concurrent.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment