HKSAR v. Li Chun Kit

Case No.DCCC 77/2020[2020] HKDC 882
Court
District Court
Date08 Sep 2020
Judge—
Case Document
100%

DCCC 77/2020

[2020] HKDC 882

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 77 OF 2020

________________________

  HKSAR  
  v  
  LI Chun-kit  

________________________

Before: HH Judge E. Yip
Date: 8th September 2020 at 14:48 pm
Present: Ms Flavia FUNG, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR
Ms LAU Chih Wai Lorinda, instructed by M/s Foo & Li assigned by DLA for Defendant
Offence: [1] Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

Charge

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to a charge of drug trafficking.

Facts

2.On 18 October 2019 at around 11:19pm, the Defendant was intercepted by SCO 07318 in the West Customs Departure Hall, 1st Floor, Passenger Clearance Building, Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, Chek Lap Kok, for customs clearance.

3.Subsequently, the Defendant was taken to a room inside the Departure Hall for body search. CO 19185 found the following items:

(a)  inside the right upper pocket of the trousers of the Defendant, a white tissue paper wrapping 1 plastic bag containing 1.53 grammes of a solid containing 1.30 grammes of cocaine (“E1”);

(b)  inside the right pocket of the jacket of the Defendant, 2 pieces of tissue paper wrapping 2 plastic bags, inside of which were altogether 108 plastic bags containing a total of 17.71 grammes of a solid containing 14.83 grammes of cocaine (“E2”).

4.Under caution, the Defendant stated that:

(a)  E1 was cocaine and it was for his self-consumption;

(b)  he purchased it for more than HK$1,000;

(c)  E2 was cocaine and he brought it to Macau for consumption by his friends in a party;

(d)  he purchased E2 for more than HK$20,000;

(e)  he would not receive any reward for giving the dangerous drugs to his friends;

(f)  he worked as a transportation worker earning around HK$20,000 per month.

5.The Defendant was also found cash HK$507.5 and 1 mobile phone with him.

6.The estimated street value of the cocaine found was close to HK$20,000.

7.A test on the Defendant’s urine indicated a positive result towards cocaine consumption.

Mitigation

8.The Defendant is 28 years of age. He is educated up to F. 4 level. His wife works in the mainland. He is a transportation worker. He has been a drug addict for a few years.

9.As admitted to the customs officer, E1 (1.53 grammes) of the drug (16.13 grammes in total) was for his self-consumption. His counsel asks me to reduce the sentence to reflect this aspect.

10.The sentencing guidelines for trafficking 10 – 50 grammes of cocaine point to 5 – 8 years’ imprisonment in the absence of aggravating factors (A.G. v Rojas CAAR 15/1993 applying the guidelines for heroin in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 to cocaine).

11.He had the following drug-related records:

(1)  Trafficking (sentenced to 14 months in 2014);

(2)  Possession (sentenced to 6 months in 2015);

(3)  Trafficking (sentenced to 32 months in 2017).

12.His last jail term had no deterrence on him. It did not take long for him to re-offend. His re-offending is an aggravating factor in his sentence.

Sentencing this Defendant

13.If the whole lot was for trafficking, I will consider a starting point of 63 months. While the slight portion for his self-consumption can indicate a slightly lower starting point, it has to be adjusted upwards due to his re-offending. Eventually I take 60 months as the starting point. After the one-third discount for the plea of guilty, the sentence is 40 months.

  (E. Yip)
  District Judge

Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error

Related Cases
Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first

HKSAR v. Majid Muhammad

DCCC 75/2015 · District Court
28 Apr 2015
2 shared citations

HKSAR v. Chang Kwok Hei

DCCC 593/2013 · District Court
04 Sep 2013
2 shared citations

HKSAR v. Tam Tsz Chung

DCCC 425/2013 · District Court
01 Aug 2013
2 shared citations

香港特別行政區 訴 馬志豪

DCCC 395/2013 · District Court
30 Aug 2013
2 shared citations
Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case