HKSAR v. Cabahug Roselyn Dejerio

Application for leave to appeal by the defendant to Court of Appeal against sentence dismissed. Please refer to CACC430/2009 dted 3 August 2010
Case No.HCCC 226/2009
Court
High Court CFI
Date17 Nov 2009
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC226/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 226 OF 2009

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

  HKSAR  
  v.  
  CABAHUG ROSELYN DEJERIO  

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

Before:

Hon M Poon J in Court

Date:

17 November 2009 at 10.00 am

Present:

Mr Ira Lui, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Wilson Chan, instructed by the Legal Aid Department, for the Accused

Offence:

Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

The defendant arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport from Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Her suitcases were searched by Custom officers, and a number of bags containing drugs were found in the cover of five hardback books. She claimed that she had bought those books in Vietnam for her children in the Philippines, and she was on her way to China via Hong Kong to source products for resale in the Philippines.

Upon analysis, the drugs were found to be 2,671.32 grammes of a mixture, containing a total of 1,940.39 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. The retail value of the heroin was approximately HK$2.1 million.

The defendant is aged 43. She has no criminal record in Hong Kong. By way of mitigation I was told that the defendant was separated from her husband. She has two sons aged 15 and 18, and they are still receiving full time education. I was told that her mother suffered from cancer and had undergone expensive operations and treatments, and she has been financially responsible for the mother and her two sons. On this occasion she was persuaded into delivering the drugs from Vietnam to Hong Kong, and then to China, for financial gain.

In sentencing the defendant I have taken into account the nature of the offence, the kind of drugs involved and the sentencing authorities and tariffs. According to the case of Lau Tak Ming, trafficking in heroin weighing above 600 grammes, a starting point of more than 20 years is to be adopted.

It is common grounds that the defendant committed this offence before the new guidelines in the case of Abdallah Anwar Abbas, CACC304/2008, were set down by the Court of Appeal, and it is conceded that those new guidelines do not apply in the present case.

I have reviewed the following post-Anwar cases involving international element, but likewise which were committed before the new guidelines were pronounced. That is the Umangal case, CACC298/2008, which involves 1.45 kilograms of heroin hydrochloride. The Court of Appeal approved of a 24 years starting point. The case of Mohamed Omar Ally, CACC407/2008, involves 1,074.59 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. A starting point of 23 years was approved. In the case of Wu Chun Yu, CACC397/2008, involved 2,714.43 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, a starting point of 26 years was approved.

Defence counsel has stressed on the case of Ban Ping Yu, CACC102/2000. The accused there arrived in Hong Kong from Bangkok and was found to be in possession of 2,298.09 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. A starting point of 24 years was approved by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal in the case of Ho Kam Fu, CACC402/2003, said that for 2.91 kilograms of heroin the starting point should be one of not less than 25 years.

Having reviewed those authorities and taking into account the international factor and the amount of drugs involved in the present case, I adopt a starting point of 24 years, and give the defendant one-third discount for a plea of guilty.

She is sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment.

Application for leave to appeal by the defendant to Court of Appeal against sentence dismissed. Please refer to CACC430/2009 dted 3 August 2010