COURT: The defendant, your name is Schoeman Mary Wilson.
ACCUSED: Yes.
COURT: You pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134, before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.
Now, I will repeat the gist of the Summary of Facts that you have admitted.
On 25 November 2022, the defendant arrived in Hong Kong International Airport on a commercial flight from Doha, and she was intercepted by the Customs and Excise officers when she walked along the green channel. And at that time, she was carrying a suitcase and a briefcase, and she confirmed with the Customs and Excise officers that the suitcase and the briefcase belonged to her.
And so upon inspection, inside concealed compartments of the suitcase, there was a sponge pad in which there were plastic packing material containing 591 grammes of a solid containing 506 grammes of cocaine, and another plastic packing material containing 1.18 kilogrammes of a solid containing 1.02 kilogrammes of cocaine.
And then in the concealed compartments of the briefcase, there was a sponge pad in which there were plastic packing material containing 269 grammes of a solid containing 232 grammes of cocaine, and a sponge pad in which there were plastic packing material containing 269 grammes of a solid containing 226 grammes of cocaine, yet another sponge pad in which there were plastic packing material containing 280 grammes of a solid containing 241 grammes of cocaine, and lastly another sponge pad in which there were plastic packing material containing 268 grammes of a solid containing 230 grammes of cocaine. So there were, in total, 2,857 grammes of a solid containing 2,455 grammes of cocaine concealed inside the suitcase and the briefcase.
The estimated street value was HK$2,382,738.
Then, the Customs and Excise officers further seized from the defendant, among other things, a boarding pass of the defendant of the following flights: Departing on 17 November 2022 from Luanda to Sao Paulo, and then departing on 23 November 2022 from Sao Paulo to Doha, departing on 25 November 2022 from Doha to Hong Kong. There was also a departure card, a debit card, and cash of various sums. And also in your phone, there was a record of messages showing a chat between the defendant and another person, and you mentioned that you were under interrogation and you managed to stay away because they believed your story.
And the defendant was arrested for drug trafficking. Under caution, you asserted that you had received the suitcase and the briefcase as gifts in Brazil from someone whom you did not know. And you further told the officers that your plan was to go to a hotel in Hong Kong and then return home on 7 December 2022, and you had no plan of passing the suitcase and the briefcase to anyone in Hong Kong. That is what you said under caution.
And the defendant subsequently attended a video-recorded interview with the officers and you confirmed that you had travelled from Brazil to Qatar, and then from Qatar to Hong Kong, but you denied that you have committed the offence. At the time, you denied, but, of course, when you pleaded guilty, you admitted that you knew the suitcase and the briefcase contained dangerous drugs and you possessed all the drugs in question for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. So those were the facts that you have admitted.
Now, the background and mitigation. According to the antecedent statement, the defendant was born in December 1978, so is now 45 years old. You do not have any criminal record in Hong Kong. You claim to have studied up to high school, Grade 11. And you were a part-time homemaker, single, but have three sons aged 24, 19, and 13.
Your counsel, Ms Elizabeth Herbert, gave this court more information on the defendant. Now, apart from the three sons mentioned in the antecedent statement, the defendant had two other children whom you have given up for adoption. You were living with your youngest son, who is now 14, before your flew to Hong Kong. Your other sons are adults and financially independent. And the defendant’s husband deserted her when she was pregnant with the youngest son and ceased providing for her and all the sons.
And the defendant then started working as a saleslady and a receptionist for a company selling sewing machines prior to the pandemic, earning 2,000 rand to 3,000 rand per month. But, in 2020, due to the pandemic, the defendant lost her job and she struggled to support herself and the youngest son. From time to time, she worked as a housecleaner, and the defendant’s father, who contributed to the family expenses passed away in 2020, so making the financial strain worse.
Then, counsel referred to the case of Herry Jane Yusuph and made her submission in relation to the six-steps approach and urged this court to impose a sentence as lenient as possible.
My consideration and reason for the sentence. For the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, a person convicted on indictment is liable to life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million, and I will adopt the six-steps approach in Herry Jane Yusuph.
So the first step, the quantity of cocaine involved was 2,455 grammes, which falls into the band of 1,200 to 4,000 grammes with a starting point between 23 to 26 years. That is according to the case of Abdullah.
Second step, the defendant was a courier who brought the drugs into Hong Kong from overseas, so international element is involved here. But being a courier is also the lowest rank of the hierarchy.
The third step, bearing in mind the role played by the defendant, in particular, her act of bringing the dangerous drugs into Hong Kong, I am of the view that within this starting point of 23 to 26 years, a notional starting point after trial of 25 years is appropriate.
Now, the fourth step, bringing dangerous drugs into Hong Kong is, of course, an aggravating factor, but since I have already taken that into account under step two, there are no other aggravating factors.
The fifth step is mitigating factor, and in the defendant’s case, of course, it is your timely plea and you are entitled to the full one-third discount. And it has also been submitted that you made contribution to Father John Wotherspoon’s campaign to combat drugs and I actually have the letter from Father John about this and I will further allow a discount of 3 months for this. So this is, of course, according to the case of Kilima Abubakar Abbas.
So the last step. So with the full one-third discount and with this extra 3 months discount, the sentence would be 16 years and 5 months. I am satisfied that this is fair and just, even though the defendant will inevitably encounter some kind of difficulties while being imprisoned in a foreign country, but I will not further reduce the sentence.
So 16 years and 5 months would be the sentence.