COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug was 3,325.25 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 3,134.58 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The latter is the narcotic quantity.
The defendant is a Philippines’ national who was stopped at the airport for a random luggage search. Subsequently, Customs officers found drugs in the suitcase and eventually those drugs were analysed by the Government Chemist who certified the quantity and the nature of the drug as set out in the particulars of the charge.
When cautioned, after arrest, the defendant told the Customs officer that the suitcase was one she had been given by a friend in Mali. She had been given it as her own bag was not big enough for some used clothes that her friend had given her for her children. She did not know what the white powder was.
Today the defendant has admitted that she knew what she was carrying was drugs, but did not know the nature or quantity of the amount that she was carrying. The retail value of the narcotic at the time of the arrest was $2,473,331.
The defendant in a video-recorded interview said that she was a college graduate, she was separated from her husband, she had three children and she had gone to Mali at the behest of a woman referred to as “Blessing”. It was there that she was given the clothes and the suitcase. She said she had checked the suitcase when there was nothing in it, had asked why it was heavy and was told that it was because it was old. She did not think any more about that but took the plane from Mali to Hong Kong.
In mitigation the court was advised that the defendant had trained as a medical technician, she had been married in 1997 and, she had lost her job as a technician in 2004. Thereafter she worked as a domestic helper in Malaysia earning $1,000 a month, whereas her previous salary had been in the region of $2,000 a month.
She was deserted by her husband in 2008 and returned to Manila to care for her children. Again, she worked at various jobs as a technician. While she was in Manila she was befriended by a Nigerian man referred to as “Amuuche” who came to the Philippines and cared for her and eventually through him she went back and carried these drugs.
I was advised that the drugs were not meant for Hong Kong and it is correct that in her papers there were indications that she was going to go through to Manila on the same day as the day of her arrest.
The defendant put before the court a letter in which she apologised to the court and effectively to the Hong Kong community for her behaviour. She sought leniency in particular because she had three children to care for and had no idea what had happened to them, or who was looking after them. She gave details of her hard life in the Philippines and gave, as the reason for her carrying out this offence, the fact that she wanted to give her children a better life.
The starting point for sentence in this case is the case of Attorney General and Ching Kwok Hung[1991] 2HKLR123 which sets out a sentence of 18 years and upwards for quantities in excess of 600 grammes. Here the quantity was substantially more than that.
I note that there was an importation element in this case despite the fact that it was to go through to Manila or other places. It was clear that Hong Kong was at risk of this drug eventually getting on to the street which is what could have happened had she been able to get the drugs through Customs.
However, I note that in the ordinary course of events if she had remained in transit the drugs would not have come through Hong Kong.
I take a starting point in this case of 21 years’ imprisonment and add to it 2 years for the importation element. I give a full discount of one-third for the only real mitigation in this case which is the plea of guilty.
I sentence the defendant to 15 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.