HKSAR v. LEE MAI MUI, CANDY

HCCC 368/2017

[2018] HKCFI 736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 368 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: All right, defendant please stand.

The defendant has pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, namely 34.59 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 34.03 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The Summary of Facts to which she admitted was that on 22 February 2017, she was intercepted when she was outside her home in Tin Chak House. She was taken back to her home and she opened the door with her keys, and inside the living room was a paper box containing 372 transparent resealable plastic bags and another box containing an electronic scale.

From a hole behind the intercom panel, police officers found the drugs which is the subject matter of the charge. Also found with the drugs were four paper packets containing 20.29 grammes of a solid which did not contain any dangerous drugs.

Under caution, she had nothing to say. In the video-recorded interview subsequently, she admitted she was the only tenant of the flat, and she was a drug user and was unemployed, and from police inquiries, it was clear that she had been a tenant of the flat since November 2011.

The dangerous drugs seized had an estimated retail value of HK$10,723.

She was tested when she was remanded at the Tai Lam Centre for Women and she tested positive for amphetamine and benzodiazepine in her urine.

A Sivan procedure was held earlier on today, and certain matters had been brought to my attention. In mitigation, Mr Wong, on her behalf, submitted several mitigation letters. The defendant is the daughter of a rather large family. She has nine siblings and the letter from her siblings testified to the fact that they respected her, and that she was a very, very filial daughter, who took care of their father when he was ill with cancer, and she took the burden upon herself despite the fact that she had two young sons, who were suffering from dyslexia.

The defendant herself had been unemployed, and after the birth of her second son, I am told, about nine years ago, her husband left her, because he had many debts. And so basically she had to bring up her children on her own. At the time of the offence, she was unemployed, and she was a CSSA recipient.

Also very touching letters were written by both her sons to testify to the fact that they highly respected their mother and loved her very much, because in their eyes, she was the best mother ever, and that they are hoping that she can be released so that she can return and be with them.

The eldest son, in particular, who is 18 now, also wrote about how his mother is a very caring mother, taught them how to be good children, and also gave an example of her love in that he was rewarded for getting very good results in his exams, with a pair of sports shoes that he knew well that his mother could not afford.

So there is no doubt in my mind that the defendant is a very responsible, caring, and loving daughter and mother. But where she went wrong is, in order to relief the pressures on her, she turned to drugs. It is an easy escape, but also a very, very evil one, as the defendant seems to realise in her letter to this court. It is very evil, and it destroys the taker, and it also destroys other families and other lives.

I am told by Mr Wong that her siblings and her sons are not here in court not because they don’t support her, but because it was at the express wish of the defendants in that she felt ashamed to face them. I can only say that everybody makes mistakes in life, and according to the defendant, she has found God in prison, and it is not too late to turn over a new leaf, and it is perhaps encouraging that the defendant herself realised that she cannot go down this wayward road again, and hopefully, with the help of religion, she can become the person that I am sure she wants to be, a loving mother and a caring support to her family.

As Mr Wong in mitigation very correctly identified, there are sentencing guidelines. He also identified the fact that from all the known data, the defendant really was different from the regular kind of traffickers or mules that come before this court. He asserts in mitigation that she bought those drugs and intended to share it out amongst some of her friends, who were also drug addicts themselves, and they pooled their resources together to buy in bulk, which is cheaper. And so although Mr Wong recognised that it is not mitigation in the sense that it is still trafficking, however, he submitted that it was not intended to be distributed to the unwary public.

However, there is no guarantee that this disposal of the drugs to her friends would not end up on the public street, because she has no control over, ultimately, where the drugs will land, and that is the problem. And so the courts have to punish people found with these drugs in a severe manner.

Now, in the case of HKSAR and Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, the Court of Appeal has said that for trafficking in between 10 to 70 grammes of this drug would merit a sentence of 7 to 11 years of imprisonment. So for the amount that was found, that is, 34.03 grammes, it would be in the region of starting point of about 8 years.

I take into account the defendant has served a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre sentence for possession of dangerous drugs in 2014, and the background of this case, and also the fact that Mr Wong says that the empty plastic bags that were found, in fact, were for the antique coins that she was collecting, and photographs had been submitted showing these coins and how they are placed in jars with the plastic envelopes. However that may be, but I do note that there is no evidence that the scale had any traces of dangerous drugs, nor were any other equipment found with traces of dangerous drugs. So I give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant, that some of those plastic bags were indeed for her antique coins.

I also give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant, about what she says, that she was not intending for the drugs to be distributed on the streets for common consumption.

So at the end of the day, I consider that in light of the background, the facts of this case, that I will adopt a starting point of 7 and a half years’ imprisonment after trial, and one-third discount would bring the sentence down to 5 years.

However, as I have mentioned, there are certain matters which I had been informed of in the previous Sivan hearing, taking into account also the mitigation, I will reduce that sentence to one of 4 and a half years, and with the hope that the defendant has learned her lesson, and will take advantage of this opportunity to get herself away from drugs, and be a credit to her family, who obviously loves her, because at the end of the day, I have not seen a defendant on a trafficking charge who is so well loved by her children and her family, and that is a blessing which the defendant should really appreciate.