CRIMINAL CASE NO. 60 OF 2011
Back in 2005, with a woman called Liu Liying, you embarked on a plan to steal from elderly men. You picked them up in public places and offered them cheap sex. You gained their trust, you went back to their homes and you drugged them and stole from them.
Your first victim was a 78-year-old man. It was on 3 January 2005 that the two of you drugged him with a mixture of estazolam and triazolam. You stole $138,000 in cash as well as jewellery and a camera. The loss was uninsured and would have hurt him and his family. He survived, although he was rendered unconscious throughout much of that day.
Your second victim was a 66-year-old man. It was on 22 March of 2005 that the two of you drugged him. This time the drug clozapine was added to the mixture of estazolam and triazolam. It proved to be fatal. The capacity of the clozapine to cause clotting led to a pulmonary embolism of which the man died two days later. You stole $10,000-odd from his home as well as personal possessions.
The relation of those bare facts reveals serious crime. Knocking anyone out with drugs in order to steal is a grave matter. In your case it is exacerbated by the fact that it was the elderly whom you targeted, increasing thereby the risks of harm.
Whilst the death was not looked for by you, the risk of harm and the risk of death is something that had been contemplated by the two of you, even if it was dismissed in your ignorance. I do not know why and I never will know why clozapine was added to the benzodiazepine. Liu Liying has escaped justice thus far and you will not tell the truth about it. What I do know is that your victim was given 10 times the usual starting dose.
Your conduct was calculated and repeated and the message must be clear to anyone minded to use drugs to render their victims unconscious in order to commit crime. The message is that they will face very substantial terms of imprisonment, especially when death results. For your criminal greed, a life has been lost.
The evidence against you is overwhelming. You displayed no shred of remorse; not a word of apology has passed your lips. Your claim to have liked the man who subsequently died was completely at odds with your conduct in drugging him and stealing from him.
The pleas of guilty to the counts charging theft will earn you the usual discount, even though they indicate no remorse and even though you resiled from them in your dishonest testimony.
On Count 1, which deals with drugging the first victim who survived, I shall take a term of 10 years’ imprisonment. The 4-year sentence I pass on Count 2, the associated theft, will run concurrently to it. On Count 5, the manslaughter, you will go to prison for 15 years. The 4-year sentence I pass on Count 4 will run concurrently to it.
Those are long sentences and they are designed to be. My judgment as to their length is based on the gravity of your conduct and the need to deter.
Separate crime very often calls for some degree of consecutive sentencing. However, in your case, I judge that 15 years overall is the right total. Accordingly, and not through any inclination to mercy, I shall order that all the sentences run concurrently.
The sentence is 15 years’ imprisonment.