HKSAR v. LI CHIN TO

DCCC 118/2018

[2018] HKDC 989

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 118 OF 2018

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty today to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The drugs involved are 4.34 grammes of a mixture containing 3.25 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

2.  The facts are that, around 5.30 pm on 13 December 2017, police officers were patrolling outside Lung Cheong House in Lower Wong Tai Sin Estate when they noticed the defendant acting suspiciously. He attracted attention to himself so they intercepted him.  He then threw something to the ground, which they picked up.  The police found inside a newspaper a transparent resealable plastic bag containing 10 red pellets and 15 yellow pellets containing the heroin of this charge.

3.  The estimated street value was around $3,720.

4.  Under caution, the defendant made a full admission.  He told the police that at around 12 pm that day an unknown male asked him to deliver heroin for $500.  He agreed to pick up the heroin from a bench in the estate at about 5 pm and drop off the drugs, but before he had done so he was caught by the police.  He had not yet received his reward.  He fully co-operated with the police.

5.  The defendant is 63 years old and a retired construction site worker.  He is not a man with a clear record.  He has over 17 court appearances, 33 criminal convictions.  His first conviction was in 1971 and his last in 2008, some 10 years ago.  He has two previous trafficking convictions.  They were in the Magistracy Courts; in 1983 and 1990. 

6.  It is clear the defendant himself is a long-term drug addict.  He has several divan-keeping convictions as well as drug convictions.  In fact, he was first sentenced to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order in 1973. 

7.  He is now on CSSA of $3,700 a month.  He did agree to this delivery drop for financial reasons because money is tight, as explained by defence counsel.

8.  His best mitigation is his plea of guilty.  Miss Wong has said all she can say on behalf of the defendant.  The defendant only has one relative, a younger brother, and they lived together until early 2017 - they shared the rent of $1,600 and the defendant just made ends meet - until they argued.  The younger brother then moved out.  This upset the defendant and not only was he upset he then had to pay all the rent himself.  So when he was offered money to deliver drugs he was tempted, greedy and accepted the offer. 

9.  The defendant knows the consequences of this serious offence.  The guidelines for trafficking heroin come from the authority of R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370.  There, the Court of Appeal has said, where up to 10 grammes is trafficked, a starting point of between 2 to 5 years is appropriate.

10.  Here, there is 3.25 grammes of heroin. Mathematically speaking, a starting point of 3 years should be appropriate.

11.  Defendant, please stand up.

12.  I have taken into account the defendant’s mitigation; age; co-operation with the police; the fact his last conviction was 10 years ago, which does indicate he has tried to stay out of trouble after being in trouble almost all his life; and lastly I have taken into account the defendant’s plea. 

13.  I will take a starting point of 2 years and 9 months.

14.  The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled to a discount of one-third.  That is a discount of 11 months. 

15.  After that discount is applied, the defendant is sentenced to 1 year and 10 months for this offence.