HKSAR v. Ika Putri Praptaningrum

HCCC 135/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 135 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

You pleaded guilty before the Tsuen Wan Magistrates Court on 18 April 2017, to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to sections 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134 and in doing so, you accepted that you had trafficked in 319 grammes of cocaine on 14 July 2016.

The Summary of Facts was read out to you then and you agreed to them and they were read out again today and you have once more agreed them. You are formally found guilty upon that plea.

The estimated street value of the drugs in July 2016 was $559,702.

The facts which form the basis of your plea and upon which I will sentence you today are that you were the person responsible for receiving a parcel from Brazil on 8 July 2016. That parcel had your name and contact number upon it and you were the one who communicated with the officer who delivered it to you. For the purpose of delivery, you used an address provided by someone who purported to be your friend. You had contacted the post office to chase for that delivery and you were present at an address, which was not your own, when the parcel was to be delivered. You confirmed that it was your parcel and that you were expecting it but in fact it contained a Manchester United Football Club backpack in which was secreted the cocaine.

Upon arrest and caution, you told the police that you had been asked to receive the parcel by someone called Gita and that you should not use your home address because it would be dangerous. You were to take the parcel to Yuen Long and give it to Gita although you said you did not have her telephone number even though you had a mobile phone on you at the time of your arrest. She had told you, you said, the parcel contained clothes and you were nevertheless to receive $500 for receiving the parcel and handing it over.

When your true home address was searched, a further mobile phone was seized which tends to suggest that the phone that you had upon you was for contacting the post office and to contact the person to whom you were to deliver the drugs. It is unlikely therefore that you did not know how to contact Gita. Subsequent events have found that to be true. You were slightly more honest in interview because you told Customs and Excise how you came to be in Hong Kong and your personal circumstances including the fact that you and your boyfriend were Form 8 holders and he was also involved in the receipt of the parcel. You also gave them the contact numbers for him and Gita, which was stored in your mobile phone. Much of what you said however cannot be true because you have now pleaded guilty to knowingly trafficking in dangerous drugs and not Indonesian clothes.

You also admitted that this was not the first time you received such a parcel but you are before the court for this offence alone and the fact that this was not an isolated event will not affect the sentence I am about to pass.

You have one matter on your record for breach of condition of stay, which I will not take into account in passing sentence upon you as you already face a substantial sentence for the reasons I am about to give.

You are a 26-year-old Indonesian passport holder who first entered Hong Kong in 2012, to work as a domestic helper when you were just 21. At that time, you were separated from your husband and had a 2-year-old son who is now 7 years of age and is now cared for by your husband and his family. You say you divorced your husband in late 2012. Your lawful employment in Hong Kong as a domestic helper lasted only a year and thereafter you remained unlawfully until you became a Form 8 holder in 2014. You met your boyfriend in 2014. You lived with him and you were supported by him until the time of your arrest in July 2016. He was also a Form 8 holder but was nevertheless in a position to provide you with around $3,000 on an irregular basis, which you sent to Indonesia for the upkeep of your son.

Mr Bullett on your behalf reminds the court of the position you were in at the time of your relationship with your boyfriend who you say put you up to this offending and left you with little choice. A boyfriend that I note, you said was violent and abusive towards you, but upon whom you relied for financial support for yourself and son. He urges the court to take account of your true culpability in this dishonest scheme and your attempt to assist.

The guideline authority for the sentencing of trafficking in cocaine is R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370. The starting point after trial, for between 200 and 400 grammes, is 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment and for 319 grammes, the starting point after trial would be 13 years and 10 months.

There is also the aggravating factor of the international importation of these drugs from Brazil into Hong Kong. In accordance with HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas [2009] 2 HKC 197, I intend to increase that starting point by 6 months, to 14 years and 4 months to mark that element of your offending.

I also note that there is a further aggravating factor of your status in Hong Kong as a Form 8 holder. You are an asylum seeker. You entered Hong Kong in 2012 and became an asylum seeker in 2014, and as such, you have benefited from the generosity of the Hong Kong Government and its people. But you have returned the trust placed in you by becoming involved in a serious crime. This is an aggravating feature of this case. In HKSAR v Shah Syed Arif [2016] 4 HKLRD 664, the Court of Appeal said actions such as yours in your position are a serious breach of trust especially in relation to crimes as serious as this which harm our community. Because of that aggravating feature, but in consideration of the limited role you played in this offending, I intend to enhance your sentence further by 6 months only, to 14 years and 10 months.

You have also sought to do all that you can to inform others in your community of the dangers they face when caught up with the criminal underworld which exists among Form 8 holders and the use of naïve domestic helpers in difficult financial circumstances. Any assistance of this kind must be a good thing and I commend once again, Father Wotherspoon for his tireless efforts in this regard. He seems to be the only person who is doing this. You also sought to assist the authorities and I am very surprised no action has been taken given that you provided the identities of those who conspired to commit this offence and who were higher up the chain of criminality than you. That assistance has not progressed but I wish to mark the effort you made in that regard by reducing the starting point by 6 months, to 14 years and 4 months.

This event occurred in July 2016, although you pleaded guilty at the first opportunity on 18 April 2017, you then sought to vacate your plea and extra public time was taken up dealing with that application which was found to be wholly without merit. I am therefore not going to give you the benefit of the full one-third discount for plea at an early opportunity. I am going to treat you as if you had entered your plea today but before trial and in accordance with the spirit of HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1, as this matter has not been listed for trial, I intend to give you a discount of 25 per cent.

You will go to prison for 10 years and 9 months.