HKSAR v. LI SZE PUI

HCCC 283/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 283 OF 2015

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: I am going to announce sentence, the defendant may stay seated. The defendant pleaded guilty at committal on 10 July 2015 to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The drug was heroin.

Madam Interpreter, perhaps you can do a dockside translation for the facts.

INTERPRETER: Okay.

COURT: The charge related to 39.40 grammes of a mixture containing 25.60 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. Charge 2 related to 39.30 grammes of a mixture containing 27.60 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

The facts which the defendant admitted at committal have been confirmed by him before me today. Those facts show that the defendant was arrested and searched by police as he left his home in San Po Kong. A search by the police reveal a black plastic bag containing 10 resealable transparent plastic bags, each containing 20 pellets of suspected heroin. Those are the drugs referred to in Charge 1.

The defendant was arrested and cautioned. He asked for a chance, and admitted he delivered “4 Chai” for a man known to him as Chau.

Police also found on the defendant a mobile phone and $510 in cash. Police used the defendant’s key to open the flat, where a plastic bag and contents were found in Room 6 of the flat. These drugs are the subject of Charge 2.

Defendant had been renting Room 6 for a month. The defendant admitted that the drugs found in the flat were “4 Chai”, as were those found on his person. He said he could earn $5 a pellet for each pellet delivered.

In a later recorded interview, he admitted, inter alia:

(1) selling DD for Chau, earning $5 a pellet for delivery;

(2) he said Chau gave him instructions on pick up and delivery, and Chau would usually contact him at night to pay him;

(3) the defendant claimed that the cash found on him was from his CSSA.

The analysis of the pellets by the Government Chemist established the nature and the quantity of the drugs as set out in the charges. The value of the drugs seized at the time is estimated to be $59,104.

In his antecedent statement, it is shown that the defendant is now aged 65, he was born in China in 1949. He was educated in Hong Kong to Primary 4 level. He has been addicted to Number 4 heroin for more than 30 years, as is borne out by his criminal record. That criminal record also supports his admission that he had triad affiliations with the 14K.

The defendant’s criminal record is depressing, because it paints the picture of a man who has spent the greater part of his life in prison, the criminal record runs to 8 A4 pages, it shows 38 separate items. Of those, a number were related to dangerous drugs. The first drug conviction occurs in 1972, the most recent is 8 February 2012.

The record began in 1966, with offences of dishonesty and there followed a series of offences involving motor vehicles. Convictions from 1967 to March 1995 were comparatively minor, and dealt with by binding-over orders, fines, and relatively short periods of imprisonment. The first drug offence was recorded in 1972. In 1977 he was bound over after being convicted for an offence of claiming to be a member of a triad society. In 1995, however, he was convicted of two offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs, and was sentenced to 4 years on one charge, and 12 years on the other. The sentences were ordered to be concurrent.

After the imposition of those sentences, no more convictions are recorded until the charges for possession in February 2012. The defendant received a sentence, at that time, of 3 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months.

Overall, defendant appears not to have made any great changes to his lifestyle, despite the heavy sentence imposed in 1995. I note, however, that even assuming he served the whole of the 12 years sentence, that there was apparently a crime-free period from approximately 2007 to February 2012, and if he was given remission for good behaviour in prison, that period would increase by about four years.

In mitigation, I was presented with a letter from the defendant himself, in which he says that he has been a drug addict, and that he has always wanted to make a change, but his resolve was not firm enough. He is filled with remorse for committing such an offence at such an advanced age. He asked for a chance to be given early release to take care of his wife, who lives in China, and who has just completed the formalities to come to Hong Kong from the mainland. He said he is going to be more determined to mend his ways and obey the law with the company of his wife. His wife is currently 35 years old.

The defendant has worked in the past, a long time ago, but for all intents and purposes, has been on CSSA for a long period of time. Previous jobs were those such as waiter, bakery apprentice, worker in a furniture factory. But because of his constant prison stays, he admitted he was in receipt of CSSA whenever he was released.

I am advised that the application to have his wife join him will continue, even though he is going to go to prison.

Although the period that was free from conviction is comparatively short, it is possible that the defendant can make an improvement in his behaviour this time; in particular, he needs to get rid of his drug habit.

In considering the sentence, I look at the Lau Tak Ming guidelines, the total heroin hydrochloride content, is 55.20 grammes. For that quantity, which falls into the band of 50 grammes to 200 grammes, the Lau Tak Ming guidelines suggest a sentencing range of 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment.

On Charge 1, I take a starting point of 8 years, and giving one-third discount for the plea, I impose a sentence of 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. For Charge 2, I adopt the same starting point, give a one-third discount, and sentence the defendant to 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment also. The circumstances of the seizure justify my ordering the two sentences to run concurrently.

The total sentence is therefore 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.