|
-HCCC 380/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 380 OF 2012
-----------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
Li Kwok (李國) |
|
| ------------------ |
| Date: |
20 March 2013 at 9.51 am |
| Present: |
Mr Harish Melwaney, Senior Public Prosecutor, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr David Khosa, instructed by Chow, Griffiths & Chan, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the accused |
| Offence: |
(1) Trafficking in dangerous drugs (販運危險藥物) |
| |
(2) Trafficking in a dangerous drug(販運危險藥物) |
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
COURT: I have to sentence you for trafficking in dangerous drugs. You will have been told that the sentences are based upon guidelines which are, in turn, based upon the nature and the quantity of the drug. Subject to a very small amount of heroin, less than a gramme, the drug in your case is "Ice".
On 22 May of last year, you were stopped at the Lok Ma Chau Border Control Point and on your person was 96.57 grammes of "Ice". There was a further 4.32 grammes in your motorcar parked nearby. The total weight of the drug "Ice" was 100.89 grammes. The small amount of heroin that you had upon you has no impact on the sentence and, in effect, I ignore it for the purposes of passing sentence today.
You have earned yourself a third discount for your plea of guilty.
The other significant mitigation is the claim that you would have used some of these drugs for your own consumption. I have already indicated to your counsel that I will accept the thrust of that mitigation. In support of it, he produced the results of a urine test which was carried out upon your being taken into custody, which tested positive for amphetamine.
It is impossible for me to say with any degree of certainty exactly how much you would have used for yourself. The view I take of the case is this, that it would be reasonable to suppose that you would use some of it but I cannot quantify it. On the other hand, if a buyer had come along and said “I’ll buy it all off you,” you would have probably sold it all to him. And I do not forget that sometimes "Ice" is taken socially and it might have been shared in a social context even if it had been put aside notionally for your own use.
I must mention that the mischief exists that you were carrying these drugs across the border and the sentence must reflect a modest enhancement for that.
Accordingly, looking at the guidelines I have already mentioned, your case falls into the category that attracts a starting point after trial of 10 to 14 years’ imprisonment because you are in the bracket that is based upon 70 to 300 grammes. I have put you at the bottom at 10 years. I add 6 months for bringing it across the border. I give you a third discount. That would result in a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment.
I have then got to take into account the element of self-consumption. There is no precise mathematical basis for this. It is a question of feel and, in the circumstances, I judge that a reduction from that 7 years of 18 months would be right.
Accordingly, the sentence on the 1st charge is one of 5½ years’ imprisonment. The sentence on the 2nd charge is one of 18 months’ imprisonment but that will run concurrently. The total is 5½ years.
|