HKSAR v. LIU CHUI SHAN

DCCC376/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 376 OF 2009

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  You have been convicted of a drug offence, the sentence of which is governed by guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal. Such guidelines are binding upon me.

2.  Under the circumstances of this case, the quantity of drug is a determining factor of the sentence. Nothing in the circumstances of trafficking, which would enable me to pass a more lenient sentence or a more severe sentence, so that the sole determining factor should be the quantity of drugs in deciding the starting point according to the guideline.

3.  There are more than one types of drugs form the subject matter. But as I have said, it does not make the offence more serious in the particular circumstances of this case. Even if I convert one on a one-to-one basis from one drug to the other, it would not make any difference from the situation that the sentence should be determined as all the drugs are “Ice”. That means the guideline, the range of the band is one of 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment.

4.  I accepted your counsel’s submission simply because of the quantity was small, the sentence should be one at the lower end. In particular, there are no aggravating factors in respect of the trafficking, as I have said.

5.  So the starting point is one of 3 years’ imprisonment. You are entitled to one-third remission simply on the ground that you pleaded guilty. You pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and you are entitled to this one-third remission. This is, again, a principle which is binding upon me.

6.  It should follow logically if you save policeman’s time, you are entitled to further submission. I could not see any logic if the defendant’s saving court’s time, he got one-third remission and he will not be given any remission for full co-operation with the police. Of course, not too much remission would be given because in view of the fact that you have already been given one-third full remission.

7.  The other factors I will take into account is your personal circumstances. Not much is said about your sad background, but the absence of words can tell much more than words themselves. I can infer that you do not even want to talk about your past to your lawyer, otherwise your lawyer go on and on and on to tell me about it. You do not mention any details in your letter to me. I can infer and I can tell that you indeed have very unhappy past.

8.  It is quite unfortunate for you to defraud the government or the people by agreeing to a bogus marriage.

9.  All in all, I am well satisfied, although I do not know the exact details that you had a very unhappy, unfortunate, past. And no doubt, this would, as you have pointed out, contribute to your drug addiction and your criminal behaviour.

10.  Yet, because of all these reason, I am happy to give you another three months’ remission on top of that; that would give us 21 months. I sentence you to 21 months’ imprisonment.

11.  I would also consider what your counsel said and what you said and what you said in your letter. I see that you have received some relationship with some Christian organisation. As I said, absence of something, may tell a lot. I do detect certain self-confidence in you. You do not even have to resort to procuring letters from this Christian organisation, although I suspect they may attend in court to support you.

12.  But of course you are not very confident in your counsel, strictly speaking, by not confiding in him all the details and you want to submit your own letter, but I cannot blame you because it has become a widespread practice for defendant to submit letters from relatives, from friends, from other people, yes.

13.  I must take into consideration that you may indeed have a good chance of reforming yourself. I would also, as you and your counsel ask me to consider the totality of the sentence, but I do not think I am entirely free in considering whether the sentence is to run concurrent with the previous offence because they are separate and distinct offence.

14.  On the other hand, they, of course, by the same set of unfortunate facts, because your tragic background, if you do not commit this offence, you would commit another to get the money. There is a common thread through all this criminal behaviour. I would certainly would not order any concurrent sentence with a wounding offence which is quite separate from this. But I accept that the common root of this criminal behaviour is the drug problem and that you, as I said, both offences are economically-motivated, contributed to by your personal circumstances, which must be very sad. So to strike a balance, I will make the totality of the sentence not too severe, I will order 6 months from this 21-month sentence to run concurrently with your current sentence.