HKSAR v. LI WAI LUN

DCCC688/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 688 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  I have already set out the factual basis for sentencing. The defendant’s antecedents have been produced before me. The defendant is aged 36. He is married. He has a young son under one year old. The defendant was a delivery worker before his arrest earning some $10,000 per month.

2.  The defendant has a lengthy criminal record which dates back to 1988 when he was placed on probation originally for handling stolen goods.  He was sentenced to Training Centre on two occasions in 1989 and 1992, the relevant conviction being in 1992 when he was sentenced for an offence of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.  Since then the defendant has had a number of convictions for drug offences.  These are all for possession of a dangerous drug and indicate that the defendant has been a consumer of drugs for a number of years and the defendant has been sentenced to terms of imprisonment from 2008 onwards.  His only other conviction is in relation to driving a motor vehicle without third party risks and a licence.  It would appear that the defendant’s criminality in his adult life has related entirely to his consumption of drugs which is unfortunate because it may be that without such an addition the defendant would not find himself in a criminal court at all.

3.  The defendant has been convicted on his own plea now of trafficking in a substantial quantity of a dangerous drug and the court can only in these circumstances impose a sentence of imprisonment.  The range of sentencing in respect of these drugs is set out clearly in authorities.  The dominant drug that I am dealing with in this case is 8.35 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.  There is also a small quantity of cocaine.  In respect of the methamphetamine hydrochloride the tariff is stated as up to 10 grammes of that drug warrants a sentence of between 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment and that is the appropriate tariff I believe to be adopted in respect of the defendant’s trafficking in these drugs.

4.  In mitigation it is said that the defendant is himself obviously a consumer of drugs and one can see that from his record and may have been in a position to use some of the drugs but the prosecution case that I have accepted would indicate the defendant at this time was simply a carrier of these drugs moving them from one place to another and his reward was a payment of money, a $1,000.  As to the appropriate discount, the defendant has pleaded guilty.  We have had an investigation into the factual basis of sentencing.  I take the view the defendant is entitled to do that and to do so without losing the benefit that he would have enjoyed or that he enjoys by entering a plea of guilty before this court. 

5.  So taking all these factors into account and the operative tariff for this drug and this defendant’s personal circumstances and record, I will adopt a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment or 60 months for this offence.  I reduce that by one-third for the defendant’s plea of guilty.  This will lead to a sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment.