|
HCCC19/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19 OF 2009
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Choi Sau-ling (蔡秀玲) |
|
----------------------
| Date: |
7 May 2009 at 11.21 am |
| Present: |
Mr William Stirling, on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr John Marray, instructed by Tai, Mak & Partners, for the Accused |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in dangerous drugs (販運危險藥物) |
Transcript of the audio recording
of the Sentence in the above case
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in dangerous
drugs. Count 1 related to 500.23 grammes of a mixture containing 422.51
grammes of ketamine, and also 149.12 grammes of cocaine.
Count 2 related to
1) 15.93 grammes of Nimetazepam in the form of 2,162
tablets,
2) 45.94 grammes of Midazolam in the form of 3,150 tablets,
3)
5.6 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 5.46 grammes of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, which is “Ice”,
4) 21.97 grammes of 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, which is “Ecstasy”, and
took the form of 188 tablets,
5) 54.68 grammes of a mixture containing 45.20 grammes
of Ketamine, and
6) 133.97 grammes of a solid containing 109.52 grammes
of cocaine.
The facts put before the court and admitted by the
defendant revealed that the defendant was arrested in consequence of a police
ambush as she and a male friend returned to the flat where she was living, although
she was not the tenant. Two keys to the flat were seized from the defendant
as she was about to open the door and the drugs the subject of Charge 1 were
found when police searched her handbag.
After her arrest for trafficking, the defendant told
police that she carried the dangerous drugs for somebody because she had no
money.
A search warrant was executed and the flat was searched.
This led to the discovery of the drugs, the subject of the 2nd charge, which
were on a side-table in the sitting room. When arrested and cautioned
for trafficking in respect of those drugs, the defendant said that she was the
owner of the drugs and that they had nothing to do with her friend.
Later, in the video interview, she told the interviewing
officer how she had become involved in this trafficking and how she was carrying
drugs to and from, at the instructions of somebody else.
The defendant is aged 25 years old. She was
single at the time of her arrest. She was unemployed. She has two
previous convictions. In March 1993, she was convicted in the Magistracy
of trafficking and ordered to serve a term in the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.
In November of 2004, she was convicted of making a false statement to an Immigration
officer and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service.
In mitigation, I was advised that she was separated
from her husband, that she has a 3-year-old daughter who is being cared for
by the husband’s parents, and that she was in the process of a divorce.
A letter expressing the defendant’s remorse was put
before the court, and letters from her parents and her sister-in-law were also
put before the court, requesting leniency in terms of sentence.
The estimated value of the drugs was HK$527,690.
The basic reason the defendant became involved in these offences was that she
wanted to get quick money so that she could retrieve her daughter from her husband’s
parents in China and rear her daughter herself. From her record, it appears
that she herself was taking drugs.
These were very serious offences involving substantial
quantities of drugs. The major drugs are the cocaine and the Ketamine
and the combined ranges, probably, of the Ketamine and the cocaine would amount
to 15 years as a starting point for sentence. However, I note that these
offences were committed almost at the same time and I note that the combined
quantities of the Ketamine and the cocaine are substantial, spread over
the two charges.
I consider that the best way to deal with the charges
is to combine the quantities of the cocaine and the Ketamine. In respect
of Charge 2, the most serious component is the 109.52 grammes of cocaine which,
if charged separately, would require a starting point of between 8 and 12 years.
Item (5), 45.20 grammes of ketamine, if charged alone, would justify a starting
point of 4 to 6 years. Item (4), the 21.97 grammes of Ecstasy, if charged
alone would justify a starting point of 5 years based on the new guidelines
for Ketamine and Ecstasy/MDMA,[see Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng
CAAR7/2006] where 10 to 50 grammes has a range of 4 to 6 years imprisonment.
5.46 grammes of Ice, which is item (3), would require a starting point of roughly
4 years as up to 10 grammes of Ice has a range of 3 to 7 years on sentence.
The Midazolam charge alone would be at the discretion
of the sentencer and would be based on the guidelines for methaqualone.
The 15.93 grammes of Nimetazepam would also be in the discretion of the sentencer
and possibly in the range of two-thirds of methaqualone guidelines.
I take a starting point in respect of each charge
of 12 years’ imprisonment. I give the defendant the full discount of one-third
for her pleas. She is sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment on each of the
two charges. I order that the sentences run concurrently.
|