HKSAR v. LI TING WAI, BENJAMIN

DCCC 1165/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1165 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant, Mr Li, has pleaded guilty to one offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the quantity being 40.39 grammes of a solid containing 13.52 grammes of cocaine. The defendant agreed the facts of the case and I convicted him accordingly.

2. Those facts briefly show that on 2 November 2013, the defendant was intercepted by police officers and inside his trouser pocket, a bag was found in which the cocaine was contained.  On arrest, the defendant was immediately cautioned for trafficking in a dangerous drug.  He admitted that offence and he said he had done it because his mother owed a debt of considerable amount. 

3. He was later subjected to a video-recorded cautioned interview and was asked about how he had come to traffic in those drugs.  He said he had been in a park in Tsui Wan and asked if he needed quick cash by a male person with long hair who he met for the first time.  He had been asked to deliver something to Chai Wan.  Eventually he had been given the packet with the drug inside and told to deliver it to an estate in Chai Wan.  He said he had received $500 as his reward from the recipient of the drug. 

4. The defendant was arrested after that.  He had a mobile phone upon him and cash of $3,120.  His mother had given him this cash for meals and expenses.  The street value of the drug is estimated at $13,384.80.

5. Those facts were admitted and the defendant was convicted on the basis of those facts.

6. His antecedents were also admitted.  He is a graduate of the Salesians of Don Bosco Secondary School, worked as an apprentice at a baker shop and is aged 27 years.  The defendant’s criminal record is admitted.  These show that he has one previous date of sentencing, that is 6 May 2008, for offences of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the same offences he faces today.  He received sentences of 6 years and 7 years’ imprisonment and 2 years and 6 months of the 7 years was consecutive to the 6 year sentence.  As I say, it is the same offence as he is convicted of today. That was a lengthy sentence and the defendant was released from prison from that sentence in July of 2013. 

7. The defendant through his counsel said in mitigation that he was remorseful.  He had taken courses to improve himself, including studying and driving courses.  It was his case that he was, as he said under caution, that he committed the offence because his mother had a considerable debt.  That may be so but it does not in fact provide any mitigation for committing offences of this nature.

8. In determining the sentence, I bear in mind the fact the defendant has pleaded guilty, he is remorseful and the matters that he has raised in mitigation.  For offences of this nature, there are clear guidelines as to sentencing in this court, the object of that being to create uniformity in sentencing.  Now the quantity of drugs seized is 13.52 grammes of cocaine.  That places the defendant within the sentencing guideline category of 10 to 50 grammes of cocaine where the starting point of between 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment can be expected to be imposed.  The quantity trafficked by the defendant puts the defendant towards the bottom of the range which is 5 years’ imprisonment. 

9. Nevertheless, there is of course an aggravating feature in this case, namely the defendant’s prior conviction and lengthy sentence for exactly the same offence in 2008 for which he was only released in July of 2013 going on to commit exactly the same offence a few months later in November.  As I said, that clearly is an aggravating factor in sentencing for this matter.

10. I shall approach the defendant’s sentence as follows:-

As I said, the guideline places the defendant within the range of 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment. Given the quantity, that element of the sentence will be one of 5 years’ imprisonment. The aggravating feature of the previous conviction should in my view add a further 9 months’ imprisonment to the starting point for that sentence. Thus, my starting point for sentence in this case is one of 5 years, 9 months’ imprisonment or 69 months.

11. After deduction for the defendant’s plea of guilty and deduction of one-third, this would lead to a sentence of 46 months or 3 years, 10 months’ imprisonment.  So the sentence of the court is one of 3 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.