HKSAR v. Li Zuoxie

HCCC 141/2018

[2019] HKCFI 800

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 141 OF 2018

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

On 6 May 2017, Li Zuoxie was seen entering premises at 100-108 On Ning Road, Yuen Long. More specifically, he was seen attempting to enter Flat D, on the 2nd floor of the On Lee Building. He had a key in his hand and was seen attempting to open the door to Flat D. In his other hand was a bag bearing the name, “SASA”. The police intercepted Mr Li and searched him.

On his being searched, the police found a substantial quantity of cocaine in the SASA bag and a small amount of cocaine in his right trousers pocket. In all, they added up to 71.97 grammes of solid containing 62.84 grammes of cocaine. The police found two scales and a large number of empty small transparent plastic bags which clearly support the conclusion that the accused was engaged in trafficking in respect of the cocaine found in his possession. The accused was arrested and cautioned and said, “The stuff is not mine.” That became the subject of Count 1 on the indictment. The jury found Mr Li guilty of that charge and he was convicted.

Prior to the arrest of Mr Li, the police had been to Room B of Flat D of these premises. In those premises the police found a substantial quantity of cocaine. In particular they found 309.6 grammes of solid containing 272.6 grammes of cocaine. They also found a working scale and a large number of empty transparent resealable bags. The clear inference was that Room B was being used as a storage and packing area for the trafficking in cocaine. The jury found Mr Li not guilty of that charge and he was acquitted and discharged.

In my judgement, the jury was fully entitled to come to the verdicts that it did. It now falls to me to sentence Mr Li.

During the trial, the court heard that Mr Li is a person of previously good character with no convictions in either the Mainland or Hong Kong. Mr Li was born on the Mainland and has lived most of his life there except for a small number of visits to Hong Kong in 2017. He was arrested during the last visit. What he was doing in Hong Kong is not something that needs to be resolved in these sentencing remarks. He claimed to be assisting his pregnant girlfriend in finding accommodation in Hong Kong. I am prepared to accept that for the purpose of sentence that Mr Li’s involvement in this case was at the lowest end of the scale and he could be regarded as a courier. That is the clear implication of the verdict of the jury.

The total amount of cocaine seized by the police from the accused and seized from Room B had a street value of something of the order of $360,000. No further breakdown was supplied. On the perhaps unwarranted assumption that the value can be apportioned (the purity is almost the same) the value of the cocaine wherewith Mr Li was convicted is worth in the region of $80,000. A moment’s calculation will show how I have rounded down this figure.

Sentencing principles

For many years, the community of Hong Kong has taken a severe view of drug trafficking, particularly in relation to drugs such as cocaine. It is easy to see why. This drug has terrible consequences for the individual. It is addictive. Ridding oneself of that addiction is, to say the very least, an arduous process and sadly, history demonstrates that attempts to rid oneself of an addiction to cocaine is fraught with instances of disappointment. However, there are also serious consequences for the community. One of those consequences involves the deployment of medical and health facilities to help people who become addicted to these drugs.

The view of the community is reflected in the maximum sentence provided by section 4 of the Ordinance. That provides for convictions on indictment that a maximum sentence is life imprisonment. The view of the community is also reflected by the courts in the nature of the sentences and the levels of those sentences traditionally imposed for drug trafficking. The policy underlying the approach to sentencing for drug trafficking cases is to impose a deterrent sentence. To this end, the courts have provided sentencing guidelines for various forms of dangerous drugs including the drugs, the subject of the charge in this case.

The source of guidelines in relation to the trafficking of cocaine starts with the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Lau Tak Ming & others [1990] 2 HKLR 370. In Attorney General v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342 and R v Chang Chen Liu Sa [1994] 3 HKC 685, the Court of Appeal declared that the guidelines in R v Lau Tak Ming & Others(above) are appropriate for cocaine. The correctness of guidelines in relation to cocaine was confirmed in the decision of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437.

Considerations

The guidelines require a court sentence by reference to the quantity of drug involved. In this case, quantities are 62.84 grammes of cocaine. Under the guidelines, for 62.84 grammes of cocaine, the guidelines provide that for quantities between 50 grammes and 200 grammes the range of sentences which should be imposed is between 8 and 12 years. In my judgement, the sentence appropriate for quantities between the outer limits of the relevant sentencing band should not be a purely linear mathematical calculation. Accordingly, I consider that the appropriate sentence for the quantity relevant to Count 1 is 8 years and 2 months.

Let me make it absolutely plain: On no account have I taken into account the quantity in respect of the count for which Mr Li was acquitted. It may be helpful for Mr Li to know that had that been the case, I would have considered imposing a sentence in the vicinity of 14 years.

Sentence

Li Zuoxie, please stand up. You have been found guilty by a jury of trafficking in a substantial quantity of cocaine. I am sure that you are a person who is at the bottom level of involvement and but for that I would have sentenced you to substantially more than what I am about to impose.

The order of the court is that you be sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years and 2 months.