HKSAR v. Borrill Charlotte Marie

HCCC 257/2019

[2020] HKCFI 2951

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 257 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

________________________

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

________________________

COURT: Now, the accused is charged of occupier suffering premises to be used as a divan, contrary to section 37(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, the facts being that the accused together with her friend were found inside a cubicle flat rented by the accused where some quantities of dangerous drugs, including cocaine, methamphetamine and ketamine, were found in possession by her friend. Her friend was charged of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was sentenced before me to 7 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

The accused is a young woman now aged 20. Her father is a British national and her mother is Indonesian. The accused was born in Hong Kong and received education mostly here. She went to England to study in 2014 but she quitted school and came back to Hong Kong in 2016. She gave birth to a baby girl in the same year, and her daughter is now 3 years old. The daughter is now being taken care of by the accused’s maternal grandmother in Indonesia.

Now, there is no sentencing guideline for this kind of offence, but the usual sentence is a custodial one. Apart from this case, the accused was involved in another case which she was charged of, passing or tendering a counterfeit note, and was sentenced at the District Court before his Honour Judge Gary Lam to 12 months’ imprisonment. In the learned judge’s judgment, his Honour observed that a non-custodial sentence for rehabilitation of the accused would be considered but for the fact that the accused had already been in custody for a long period of time. The sentence imposed by the learned judge was for the purpose of an immediate release of the accused from custody.

I share the sentiment of the learned judge and I think the court should consider rehabilitation in this matter. I take the view that there is a certain degree of unfairness against the accused if a custodial sentence is to be imposed for the present offence in that she will be deprived of the opportunity of a non-custodial sentence for her rehabilitation. And because of that, a probation officer’s report and community services report were called for for consideration of sentence.

I have before me today the report of the probation officer, and it is of the view of the probation officer that a community service order is appropriate for the present offence for the accused.

For this case, I accept that there are special circumstances, namely, the background of the accused, the degree of remorse she manifested and the fact that she has served already a substantial period of time under custody, and these factors warrant this court to consider a non-custodial sentence, albeit that this is a very serious offence and the usual sentence is a custodial one.

For this offence, I sentence the accused for a community service order of 240 hours. Now this is the sentence.