CRIMINAL CASE NO. 168 OF 2008
COURT: For a reason no better than earning a fee, you endangered the life of that 18-year-old girl who came to see you. You knew full well that you were breaking the law when you did what you did then, because you knew you were not entitled to take any step to terminate her pregnancy.
I have no doubt that you gave her mifepristone. That drug is not registered for use in Hong Kong. I cannot tell for sure from the evidence whether you gave her any other drug such as misopristol. Whether you did or not affects the unpredictability of when the abortion would occur. But even with misopristol alone it could have occurred at any time in up to two weeks.
We have been told about the conversations that took place. There is no suggestion of any warning given by you of the possible complications or any counsel given to that young girl as to what she should do if she continued to bleed. A moment’s thought would reveal the risk that in fact eventuated in this case, namely that the abortion was an incomplete one, causing continued copious bleeding.
You left an 18-year-old to face that risk without any sort of medical help. We know she was reluctant to reveal her condition until it was very serious. Such reluctance in a girl like her was always to be contemplated. It was lucky for her that her sister was at home when her condition was such that she was so weak she could not stand, and she fainted.
She had lost up to 40 per cent of her total blood supply. The doctor who treated her told us that there was a real risk to her life. If the sister had not got her to hospital, she would have died.
I am aware of no other cases that have reached the appeal level either by review or appeal against sentence in Hong Kong that have concerned an illegal abortionist in such circumstances. The other cases at that level deal with surgical abortion. In cases of surgical abortion, the abortionist is there if things go wrong. The abortionist who uses the modern drug mifepristone in the way you did is not present when the abortion takes place. That increase in the risks is a mischief which must be reflected when I come to find the right starting point for your sentence.
I have read the letters that have been written on your behalf, and I give them such weight as I think proper. But I am bound to remark that you are not a sympathetic figure. The evidence from those two young people, in my view, was palpably true; you knew it to be so. You could have pleaded guilty and asked for mercy. You could have spared her having to reveal matters of her sex life in a public court. And the fact is however gently Mr Marshall may have done it, and however sensitively, in effect, you called them both liars in public.
I want to make it absolutely clear that your sentence is not increased by any of those matters by a day. The point is when it comes to being asked for mercy or sympathy, it bites then.
At the time of these matters, you were subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment. They were for relatively minor matters. But the fact remains you could not have had a clearer warning as to the need to conduct your practice in accordance with the law. There is no reason why those suspended sentences of imprisonment are not implemented consecutively, as the law requires me in the absence of a good reason otherwise.
The starting point I take in respect of both of these offences is one of 3 years’ imprisonment. The sentences will be concurrent, for obvious reasons, namely that this was one course of treatment. 2 months’ imprisonment will be implemented pursuant to the suspended sentences, consecutively, in respect of each of those two offences.
The total sentence of imprisonment is thus one of 3 years and 2 months.
I debated whether to take a starting point of 3½ years. In the circumstances, I have judged that 3 years was adequate to reflect the gravity of your conduct and the gravity of this case.