HKSAR v. Li Ka Chun

DCCC224/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 224 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant was convicted after trial of three offences; namely, burglary, trafficking in a dangerous drug and doing an act preparatory to trafficking in a dangerous drug. 

2. As far as the facts relevant to sentence are concerned they are set out in the judgment whereby I convicted the defendant, but simply stated the defendant was residing in a kind of hotel which was a villa in Dundas Street, Mongkok, and the victim of the 1st charge was also living there.  One evening the defendant entered her room and stole her wallet which contained some identity documents and cash. 

3. Subsequently the defendant was arrested some two months later and was found to be in possession of some drugs which he admitted to unlawfully trafficking and also the fact that he had prepared to traffic those drugs in the building.

4. As far as the drugs are concerned, it is a small quantity, just 0.63 gramme and some of the items in his possession were not, in fact, drugs at all. 

5. As far as the defendant’s personal circumstances are concerned, he is only 20 years old, born on 29 January 1989.  Before his conviction for these offences he in fact had a clear record.  He was educated to Form 5.  He is single, had no particular place to live other than the villa.  The antecedent statement said his relationship with his parents is bad. 

6. Now, because of his age and the possibility of the fact he may be suitable for some kind of training I obtained reports from the defendant.  There is a Background Report and a Training Centre Report.  The reports are in very similar terms.  It is enough to establish that the defendant appears to have become what they describe as “wayward” as early as Form 2 and he went beyond parental control which became even worse after he had left school.  He lived away from home and maintained no contact with his parents, eventually becoming involved in the trafficking of dangerous drugs to earn money.  The defendant himself became a drug addict. 

7. To the Probation Officer in the Background Report he expressed remorse and asked for a chance to turn over a new leaf.  He should know that his family are disappointed in him but were supportive towards any rehabilitation.  The Background Report said the discipline and character training would be conducive to him. 

8. Unfortunately, he is not suitable for detention in a training centre.  That is because he was found to be a drug dependent.  The terms of the Training Centre Suitability Report are similar to the Background Report and shows the defendant comes from a working-class family.  He is the youngest of three siblings.  He became rebellious and wilful.  That is how he is described in the report.  He became acquainted with triads.  Apparently they say he joined the Wo Shing Wo Triad Society and started taking ketamine as early as April 2003.  He has never been able to maintain stable employment, finally leaving home in early 2008.

9. The defendant has been taking “Ice”, apparently, since April 2008 and making a living through crime; namely, managing vice establishment, peddling dangerous drugs and taking “Ice” to the point where he is now addicted, so it is hardly surprising that the defendant has involved himself with the offences which I have convicted him of.  People involved in such petty crime often involve themselves in burglary and drug trafficking in order to maintain their livelihoods. 

10. In mitigation there is not a lot can be said.  He is still a young man.  He is only 20.  He has expressed remorse and he has expressed a clear desire to reform himself, but clearly the only option for sentencing that I have is one of a sentence of imprisonment.  In determining the length of that sentence of imprisonment I shall bear in mind the mitigating factors that I have outlined. 

11. As far as the burglary is concerned, it could be classified as a domestic burglary.  It was a residential premises.  There was at least the possibility of someone inside the premises though the defendant himself said there was not anyone inside when he went in but the victim said she had been in there all night. 

12. As far as the drug trafficking is concerned the defendant was, as I say, involved in trafficking a small quantity of drug. 

13. The major mitigating factor for the defendant is his youth and I would not want to impose a sentence that would make him lose hope of reformation in the future.  I have also got to bear in mind the overall total sentence should not be too long, having regard to the nature of these crimes.

14. So the sentence I have resolved upon are as follows.  On the 1st charge of burglary of a domestic premises the starting point for sentence could range as high as 3 years for an offence such as this.  I shall, in fact, adopt a starting point of 2 years 6 months’ imprisonment.  In this case, of course, the starting point is the finishing point so the sentence is 2 years 6 months’ imprisonment.  

15. On the 2nd charge, the charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug I will adopt a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment, and the 3rd charge, doing an act preparatory to trafficking in a dangerous drug will be a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.  The 2nd and 3rd charges will run concurrently to one another. 

16. Having regard to the overall totality I shall order that 6 months of the 2nd and 3rd charge run consecutively to the 1st charge and the balance of that will run concurrently.  This leads to an overall sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment.