HKSAR v. Li Ka Chun

HCCC 443/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 443 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate of one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular, the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, background of the defendant, and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The defendant was stopped on a street outside the building where he lived, and was brought back to his home. There, a search was conducted. A large packet and two small packets, each containing “Ice”, were found. Also found were a homemade “Ice” pot, a roll of tinfoil, a lighter, an electronic scale and 27 empty resealable plastic bags.

Under caution, the defendant said he got the drug for his own consumption, and would sell the leftover to others to make a living. He indicated that the two small packets were prepared so that if someone came to buy the drug, he would sell it. The total quantity of dangerous drug found was 18.35 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 18.14 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

I was told that the defendant is 24 years of age, he had received education up to Form 1, and had worked as a waiter, electrician and a cook. At the time of arrest, he was a part-time cook earning about $8,000 to $10,000 a month. He was living alone.

The defendant is not a first time offender. Indeed, he had been convicted on 9 previous occasions. The offences which he had been convicted included theft and theft-related offences, assault and indecent assault. In 2013, he was convicted of trafficking in dangerous drug and possession of apparatus fit for consumption of drug, and for which he was sentenced to receive training in a training centre.

Learned counsel for the defence, Mr Yu, asked the court to take into account that the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and that around half of the dangerous drug found was for the defendant’s own consumption.

It was held in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun CACC 524/2011, that in a case of trafficking in “Ice”, if the narcotic content was between 10 and 70 grammes, a sentence of 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment should be considered.

As regards the assertion of self-consumption, in consideration, I took into account that the defendant had conviction record, which indicated that he was a drug-abuser. All the drug was found inside his home, there were tools suitable for use for consumption of “Ice”, urine test which shows positive result for methamphetamine, the consistent assertion since arrest, and not many unused plastic bags were found. I am persuaded, in the circumstances of the case to accept that a significant proportion of the drugs found was intended for self-use.

In this connection, I have had regard to cases including HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau CACC 366/2000, HKSAR v Cheung Man Wai CACC 189/2015, and HKSAR v Tam Ling Yuen [2016] 2 HKLRD 572, and the sentencing consideration mentioned in these cases.

At the same time, even if the court is to consider a sentence for trafficking in half the quantity of “Ice”, a starting point of about 7 years should be considered. I also have to take note that possession of half the quantity of “Ice” by itself carries a substantial imprisonment term. Latent risk, which was quite substantial in this case cannot be ignored.

In addition, the fact that the defendant committed the present offence not long after his previous conviction of the same offence is an aggravating factor.

In all the circumstances, I adopt an ultimate starting point of 7 and a half years. The defendant pleaded guilty to this offence, he is therefore entitled to a one-third discount.

Having regard to the whole circumstances including the very helpful submission of Mr Yu, in my judgment, this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to.

So defendant please stand up. For the above said reasons, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 5 years.