HKSAR v. Li Jian Xiong

DCCC 806/2021

[2022] HKDC 176

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 806 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant was convicted upon his own plea of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134.

The admitted facts

2.At around 2.45 am on 1 June 2021, police officers spotted defendant walking quickly at the junction of King’s Road and North Point Road, North Point.  Defendant was intercepted and searched.  A piece of bubble wrap with a plastic bag wrapped inside was found inside a surgical mask worn by the defendant.  The plastic bag contained 13.6 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 13.4 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.  Defendant was arrested. 

3.Under caution, he admitted that the plastic bag contained methamphetamine. He was delivering it to Southern Building.  Someone would pick it up there. The defendant had one mobile phone and cash of HK$175.7 on his person.  He has no fixed place of abode. 

4.In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted that:-

(a)  On 31 May 2021, an unknown male gave the drug to him in Sham Shui Po and asked him to deliver it to Southern Building. Someone would call him when he arrived. He was promised a reward of 1.75 grammes of methamphetamine. He agreed.

(b)  The drug was methamphetamine. It was worth around HK$5,000.

(c)  He placed the drug inside his surgical mask. He took it to Southern Building and waited for a call. He was then intercepted by the police.

(d)  He was unemployed and he had no fixed place of abode.

The defendant’s background

5.The defendant was born in Guangdong, mainland China in 1979.  He is now 43 years old.  He received high school education in mainland China.  He was a scaffolder but was unemployed at the time of arrest.  He has no fixed place of abode.  He was married in 2005 but divorced some seven years ago.  He has a son and a daughter.

6.He has a total of six previous convictions, one of them is similar which is a conviction of trafficking in a dangerous drug entered in 2018 for which he was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment. 

Mitigation

7.Mr Yeung submitted a written mitigation on behalf of defendant. Apart from confirming the defendant’s background information and his criminal record as provided by the prosecution, the defence submitted that the defendant wanted to relieve his stress by consuming ‘Ice’.  The expected reward for this offence was an amount of ‘Ice’. 

8.He was very co-operative with the law enforcement agency.  He made full and frank admission and indicated his timely guilty plea.  The amount of ‘Ice’ involved in this case, that is 13.4 grammes, falls within a category of 10 to 70 grammes starting point should be one of 7 to 11 years under the sentencing guideline of HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691.  It is submitted that the exact starting point for the ‘Ice’ involved should be about 7 years and 2 to 3 months.  

9.It is also submitted that the role of the defendant in this case was a simple courier at the lower end of the hierarchy, expecting a limited reward.

10.Under the Court of Appeal decision in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, there laid down a six-step approach.  The defence submitted that there is no aggravating factor in this case, no international element was involved and defendant should deserve a one-third discount for his guilty plea. 

Sentence

11.As rightly accepted by the defence, there are clear sentencing guidelines for the subject offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug.  The drug involved in this case is methamphetamine hydrochloride.  The amount involved was 13.4 grammes.  The sentencing band for 10 to 70 grammes should be 7 to 11 years of imprisonment.  The role of the defendant was one of a courier.  He was stopped and arrested on his way to deliver the drug. 

12.I accept the defence submission that there are no aggravating factors in this case, but at the same time, I see no other mitigating factors apart from his guilty plea.  I therefore adopt the starting point of 7 years and 3 months, that is 87 months’ imprisonment.  Reduce it by one-third for the defendant’s timely plea, I sentence him to 58 months’ imprisonment.