The facts in relation to Count 1 may be summarised as follows. When customs officers inspected a parcel posted from Spain to the address as stated in the indictment, suspected dangerous drug was found. The customs took over the parcel and conducted an exercise of controlled delivery.
In the first such exercise, nobody received the parcel. Then the customs received calls from the defendant and arrangement for further delivery was confirmed. On 7 May 2019, during the second controlled delivery the defendant received the parcel, pretending to be the wife of the original consignee and having produced to the officer proof of identity of the original consignee.
The defendant was a Malaysian citizen who came to Hong Kong on 12 April 2019 and since the following day had been staying in the room to which the parcel was sent. Under caution, she admitted to have received the parcel upon request of another person called Ah Wai for a promised reward of $5,000.
The defendant is now 45 years of age. She received education in Malaysia up to secondary 3 level. She had been married but divorced in 2003. She has three children all working in Malaysia. She had worked in different factories and as a restaurant waitress. Before she came to Hong Kong, she had been working as a tourist driver and guide for six to seven years, earning stable income. She did not have any previous criminal conviction record.
Learned counsel for the defence, Ms Wong, urged the court to take into account that the defendant was a person with clear record and that she had given birth to a baby when she was in custody.
When the defendant gave evidence, she said she had only come to know of her pregnancy after she had arrived in Hong Kong. The defendant was alone in Hong Kong. The baby is under the care of the social welfare and is at present taken care of by foster parents. In the circumstances, the defendant would be deprived of a chance of seeing her baby.
Ms Wong also asked the court to take into account that the defendant was a person without much education and had been engaged in low-ranking occupation.
Ms Wong produced a very short letter from Father Wotherspoon in which Father John confirmed that the defendant had taken an active part in his anti-drug campaign. There is no detail of what the defendant had actually done.
A letter written by the defendant was also produced. The defendant set out some of her family background and said at the material time she was under tremendous financial pressure. She also stressed her concern about her daughter and wished she could join her daughter soon.
The dangerous drug in the parcel was ketamine. The total narcotic content was 2,582 grammes. The Court of Appeal suggested in the case of SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 that a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment and upwards should be considered for trafficking in ketamine if the narcotic content is over 1,000 grammes.
I have also considered cases such as the Court of Appeal decision in HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin, CACC 458/2011, and HKSAR v Chan Ka Yiu, CACC 147/2016.
In all the circumstances, in my judgment a starting point of slightly more than 19 years is appropriate in the present case.
The parcel came from Spain. Despite Ms Wong urged me not to enhance the sentence for this matter, in my judgment an enhancement is called for as there is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that the defendant agreed to take delivery of the parcel with knowledge that it came from abroad. Besides, I have to take into account that the defendant did not come from Malaysia for an innocent purpose. The evidence is sufficient for me to draw the inference that she did not.
That said, I accept that the defendant had not involved in arranging for the parcel to be posted to Hong Kong and her role was confined to dealing in or dealing with the drug inside the parcel after it had arrived in Hong Kong.
In all the circumstances, having regard to my finding that the defendant was performing a role low in the trafficking hierarchy, I am of the view that the starting point should be enhanced by about 6 months, and therefore I will adopt a notional sentence after trial of 19½ years.
The defendant did not plead guilty. She did not have a previous criminal record. I have considered her situation, including that relating to her baby and that she decided to continue her participation in the illegal exercise, having had her pregnancy confirmed. However, having regard to what learned counsel said on the defendant’s behalf, in particular that the defendant’s participation in Father John’s campaign and on humanitarian consideration, I am persuaded to give the defendant a discount of 3 months.
So, defendant, please stand up. By reasons of the matters aforesaid, I sentence you to an immediate imprisonment term of 19 years and 3 months.