HKSAR v. RAMOS PEREIRA WILLIANS

HCCC 253/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 253 OF 2017

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

On 31 July 2017, the defendant pleaded guilty at Eastern Magistrates’ Court to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to Sections 4(1)(a) and 3 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134 of the Laws of Hong Kong.

The particulars of the offence alleged that Ramos Pereira Willians, on 30 August 2016, at Hong Kong International Airport, Lantau Island, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 962.70 grammes of a solid containing 724.90 grammes of cocaine. Before me today he has confirmed that plea of guilty.

On that occasion, a Summary of Facts was read in open court and was accepted by the defendant. He was thus committed to this court for sentencing.

The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant is an all too familiar story. The defendant is aged 20 and is a Brazilian male. He arrived in Hong Kong from Sao Paulo in Brazil via Abu Dhabi. He was selected for customs clearance at the Customs Arrival Hall. Nothing was found in his baggage but the officer’s suspicion was sufficiently aroused such as to require him to be then sent to the North Lantau Hospital for medical examination.

An x-ray examination of the defendant revealed that there were, as had been suspected, foreign objects in his body. He was subsequently transferred to the custodial ward of Queen Elizabeth Hospital for observation. Between 30 August 2016 and 6 September 2016, he discharged a total of 119 packets of dangerous drugs. Those 119 packets contained, as is stated in the charge, 724.90 grammes of cocaine.

On 31 August 2016, the defendant was interviewed with the assistance of a Portuguese interpreter. Inter alia, he said the following:

(i) He knew that the foreign object inside his body was cocaine;

(ii) he had swallowed 90 to 100 packets of cocaine;

(iii) the names of two of the peoples who provided the drugs to him in Brazil were Fabio and Julia(?) but he did not have their contact numbers;

(iv) he would take a taxi to a hotel when he arrived in Hong Kong and someone would collect the dangerous drugs from him;

(v) he said he was not paid any reward for bringing the drugs to Hong Kong but that his accumulated debts will be reduced or settled in Brazil;

(vi) he was given US$300 for his travelling expenses.

The 724.90 grammes of cocaine had a retail value in Hong Kong, at the time of the offence, in excess of HK$1,150,000.

Today before me, Ms Moosdeen has on his behalf provided a handwritten letter dated 19 November which is addressed to the court from the defendant. It sets out in some detail his family circumstances and his background. I will not go through each and every paragraph in detail but it is again an all too familiar story. He comes from a very impoverished background. He had very limited education and had been working or attempting to obtain work since the age of 12.

Whilst not legally married he has been with his partner for many years and they have a young daughter. He said in this letter that it was the level of impoverishment and the need to provide for his family that ultimately led him into becoming a drug courier; not for the sake of financial reward per se but so that the debts which he had accumulated of some HK$8,000 to HK$11,000 would be discharged by those who had provided him with the drugs to bring to Hong Kong.

Ms Moosdeen has told me that in the course of the time that he has been incarcerated, he has endeavoured to provide assistance to the authorities in respect of those who had arranged for him to bring drugs to Hong Kong. She accepts that unfortunately that assistance was to no avail and of course cannot in any way mitigate his sentence. The Court of Appeal has made that abundantly clear.

In addition to attempting to provide assistance to the authorities, Ms Moosdeen has also provided to me a letter from Father John Wotherspoon, a Correctional Services Department Chaplin. In that letter, Father Wotherspoon refers to the involvement of the defendant in a campaign which he runs to effectively bring to those who would be drug couriers an awareness of the implications of bringing drugs into Hong Kong. This simply stated the campaign, which has been going for some time now, posts letters from those who have been arrested, convicted and sentenced into a forum whereby others can see them and be aware that in Hong Kong drug traffickers are treated very severely. The letter from Father Wotherspoon indicates that this defendant has actively participated in this campaign and has engaged his family and friends in Brazil as well.

It has come to my attention that on at least two previous occasions other judges in this court have been made aware of the participation of those they were about to sentence in this campaign. In HCCC 175/2017, DHCJ Bruce, SC, considered these matters at some length as did Madam Justice Barnes in HCCC 447/2016. I do not intend to paraphrase their respective reasons for sentence beyond saying that they both acknowledged that the participation by an accused in a program of this type is an indication of positive remorse and a matter which could properly be taken into account by way of a mitigating factor. I agree with the sentiments that they have both expressed.

Coming now to the appropriate approach to sentence I acknowledge, of course, the background from which this defendant comes. I have used the expression earlier it is an all too familiar story and tragically that is in fact the case. It is equally tragic the damage that is done in our community by the very drugs that couriers bring into Hong Kong and it is for that reason that our Court of Appeal has made it abundantly clear that those who do traffic in dangerous drugs will be punished severely.

The guidelines provided by the Court of Appeal for sentencing in this quantity of cocaine are, in particular, those provided by R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370, AG v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342 and HKSAR v Anwar Abdallah Abbas [2009] 2 HKLRD 437. The combined effect of those decisions insofar as this defendant is concerned is that before any enhancement of the sentence for the aggravating factor of importation, a starting point after trial would be one of 20 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

It has been made abundantly clear by the Court of Appeal that sentences in the normal course of events should enhance that starting point by reason of the aggravating factor of importation. There are certain parameters within which sentences are advised as to the quantity or quantum of that enhancement. I am satisfied in the circumstances of this case that a proper enhancement would be one of 12 months. That being the case, a proper sentence after trial will be one of 21 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Allowing for a full one‑third discount which this defendant is entitled to that would then bring his sentence back to one of 14 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

(Discussion re calculation of sentence)

As I have said, I have read and agreed with the observations of DHCJ Bruce, SC, and Madam Justice Barnes in respect of the benefits to be obtained from the course of making prospective drug traffickers aware of the implications and consequences were they to engage in that conduct insofar as Hong Kong is concerned. Like those two judges, I believe it can properly be reflected in the sentence I impose. Like those two judges, I believe a figure of 6 months further reduction is justified. In that case, I will reduce the sentence of 14 years and 4 months’ imprisonment by a further 6 months’ imprisonment, to one of 13 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

(Discussion re calculation of sentence)

That is the term of imprisonment I will impose.