COURT: Ms Figuera, on 27 February 2017, you pleaded guilty before the Eastern Magistracy to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to sections 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.
You accepted that you arrived at Hong Kong International Airport on 11 August of 2016 with 2,816 grammes of cocaine concealed within your suitcase, having travelled to Hong Kong from Caracas in Venezuela via Brazil and Malaysia. Upon arrest and caution, you remained silent and in video-recorded interview, you did not tell the truth and you made up a story about how you came to be in Hong Kong and that you were unaware of the contents of your suitcase.
The estimated street value of what you brought into Hong Kong was $4.6 million.
Mr Ross, on your behalf, has explained your background and the circumstances of your offending. But the difficulty that the courts face in Hong Kong and elsewhere in the world is that the trafficking of dangerous drugs is an evil which affects many people directly and indirectly. It affects their families and communities. Drug dealers are always looking for ways to transport their goods and to avoid detection and they use people who are wholly ignorant of what could happen to them if they were caught carrying large quantities of dangerous drugs. But you, of course, must have known what you were doing and you took the risk of it. It may not feel like it today, Ms Figuera, but you are very lucky indeed that you were detained in Hong Kong and not found in possession of this quantity of drugs in Malaysia. Your fate would have been far worse.
You cannot be treated differently from others who come before the courts, otherwise they can properly say that they have been treated unfairly. There has to be parity of sentence and only the most exceptional circumstances will provide mitigation for the international trafficking of dangerous drugs. A large proportion of those who come before the High Court come from circumstances such as yours and many come from far worse situations. Who else would be foolish enough to take such risks for what, in relative terms, is a small amount of money, although, of course, I imagine that you would have felt it was like a fortune.
Ms Figuera, you are 30 years of age and an adult and you knew what it was you were doing. You have left behind you three daughters of 8, 4 and 2 respectively, who will not see their mother again for a very long time. You had a job in Caracas as a beautician with a monthly income of some US$60 a month and you lived with an aunt and cousin. So you were not homeless and you were not unable to feed your children. Indeed, there must have been some family support as your children are now cared for by others.
Father Wotherspoon, who is present in court today, has written a letter indicating that you have supported his programme to deter others from committing the crime which you have committed. Every little helps and he tells me that you have sought to assist further.
Mr Ross, on your behalf, urges me to find that you are a woman of positive good character and in following HKSAR v Romero Cunas Liz Evelin, HCCC 403/2016, to reduce your sentence by 6 months for that positive character. I have also considered HKSAR v Odira Sharon Lensa, CACC 56/2016, which indicates that any deduction for such assistance will very much depend on the facts at hand.
You do not stand on all fours with the case of Romero but, as I said, every little helps and Father Wotherspoon’s programme is to be commended. If there comes a time when you can provide more assistance to the authorities, you may be able to seek a further discount in the future.
The guideline case for trafficking in between 1,200 and 4,000 grammes of cocaine is HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 and the range of sentence is between 23 to 26 years’ imprisonment after trial. For 2,816 grammes of cocaine, the starting point after trial is therefore, as Mr Ross correctly said, 24 years and 9 months. There is also the aggravating feature that you have imported drugs into Hong Kong and according to the Court of Appeal in that case, for amounts over 1 kilogramme, the enhancement should not be less than 2 years. I will therefore enhance your sentence by just 2 years, that making a total of 26 years and 9 months.
For the assistance you have given Father Wotherspoon’s programme which at least indicates some remorse, I will deduct 3 months from the sentence and reduce it to 26 years and 6 months. But there is no other mitigation which has been advanced on your behalf which can mitigate that sentence further as this type of offending is extremely serious and nothing other than a deterrent sentence is appropriate in this case, as the Court of Appeal has said time and time again.
You will receive, of course, the full one-third discount for entering your plea at the very first opportunity.
But Ms Figuera, you will go to prison for 17 years and 8 months.