HKSAR v. Mcdowell Siu Ann Marie

HCCC 352/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 352 OF 2014

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: Defendant, as you know you have been convicted at the trial of three offences by the jury.

The 1st offence is one of trafficking in dangerous drug, that being 33.53 grammes of a crystalline solid, containing 32.75 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, “Ice”, 10.86 grammes o a mixture containing 6.45 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and a very small amount of cocaine being 0.2 gramme of a crystalline solid containing 0.16 gramme of cocaine.

Additionally, you were convicted, as I said, of possession of dangerous drugs, namely 0.25 gramme of a mixture containing 0.13 gramme of heroin hydrochloride and 0.13 gramme of a crystalline solid containing 0.12 gramme of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The 3rd offence being the possession of 2.47 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2.4 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The facts as we know it are that the police raided your premises. You were the tenant of those premises on 3 January 2014. The drugs, the subject of the charges, were found therein. I will say no more about the facts, they have been rehearsed at length before the jury and in the trial. You are well aware of the facts.

The basis of your plea of not guilty was that you were merely a user and that the drugs belonged to D2 whose case was dismissed on submission of no case to answer.

I turn now to the antecedents statement.

You are 37 years of age, born in USA. You were educated to University level in America, and you can read and you write English. You have been working as a part-time English teacher at a secondary school in Hong Kong, I understand. You do not suffer from any particular illness, but you are a drug-dependent. You were cohabiting with your boyfriend in North Point for a number of years of which we have heard in the trial itself.

Your criminal record is that you have three actual previous criminal convictions, two of which involve drugs or equipment for use in the taking of drugs, and one for breach of a community service order, which is not a criminal conviction as such.

Further mitigation has been entered on your behalf by Mr Richmond. I am told that you had a long-term partner in the USA who was an American citizen whom you met in Hong Kong and that you have three children aged 16, 12 and 4; that in 2011 your stepfather passed away and your mother being in ill-health asked you to return and that you worked intimately with your mother and for your mother who was a part-owner of the Dragon Club in Wan Chai.

As we know, you have struggled with drug dependency since 1998, “Ice” being the drug of your addiction, and we know about your previous convictions.

After you were discharged from DATC in 2000, you managed to remain drug-free for a considerable period, that is till about 2011, or later 2011, when due to your long anti-social hours working in the club you returned to the taking of “Ice”.

This court does fully appreciate the difficulties that addicts do have in breaking a psychological and physical dependency on dangerous drugs such as “Ice”. I am told you came to know D2 who previously a person involved in these proceedings, and you became lovers and cohabited since between 2012 until your arrest in 2014.

You claimed that out of that cohabitation you were supported by D2, you also were supported to the extent that he provided your drugs and that was the extent of your involvement. However, as you know, the jury found to the contrary.

The present offence

For the purpose of sentencing, despite the fact there was no case to answer against Mr Wong, I am going to deal with this on the basis that you were not the prime mover in this offence, that you merely involved in this offence and mitigate as much as I can the sentence which I need to impose.

The approach to sentences, as I indicated to your counsel Mr Richmond would be one of the combined approach, that is taking the largest drug in terms of quantity and seriousness and then making an allowance for the other two drugs involved.

The two charges of possession, as I indicated to you, would be served concurrently because even if I was to put the amounts involved into the charge it would make very little difference to the starting point. So it would be unfair, in my opinion, to do that.

I turn now to sentence.

I take into account what has been on your behalf by Mr Richmond. I take into account what has been said in the antecedents statement. There are no aggravating features in this case. The amount of drug is not frighteningly high in terms of value or amount.

Therefore, in respect of the 1st offence I agree entirely with the calculation put forward by Mr Richmond that the “Ice” would attract a starting point of 8 years, and that an upward adjustment to take into the account the heroin and cocaine of 1 year is appropriate. Therefore, on Charge 1, you will go to prison for 9 years.

In respect of Charge 2 and Charge 3, you will go to prison for 12 months on each of these to be served concurrent to each other and concurrent to that in Charge 1.

So the total imprisonment is one of 9 years.