HKSAR v. Ho Ka Ki
|
HCCC 255/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 255 OF 2013 -----------------
-----------------
--------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording --------------------------------- COURT: The defendant, Ho Ka‑ki, a woman aged 28 years when the offence was committed, has pleaded guilty to a count of unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. She has admitted the Summary of Facts prepared by the prosecution. The relevant facts are set out below. On 15 January 2013, police mounted an anti-narcotics operation in plain clothes at Langham Place, No 8 Argyle Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon. At around 2030 hours, the defendant was observed to be on the L2 Floor of Langham Place. She was carrying a black bag and her behaviour aroused the suspicion of the observing officers who approached and intercepted her for inquiry. A search of the black bag carried by the defendant revealed a green cosmetic bag. Inside the cosmetic bag police found five plastic bags containing a suspected dangerous drug, together with two cigarette boxes each containing a bag of suspected dangerous drug. As a result, the defendant was arrested for trafficking in a dangerous drug. Under caution the defendant said, “Ah Sir, I help someone deliver this drug coke because I have to take care of my son and I’m in need of money.” Back at the police station a video-recorded interview was conducted with the defendant. During the interview, she admitted under caution that she was delivering the cocaine for a male and she picked up the dangerous drug from a rubbish bin at the Sai Yee Street area in Mong Kok. The seized plastic bags of dangerous drug were subsequently sent to the Government Chemist for examination. The Government Chemist confirmed that there was in total 167 grammes of a solid containing 108 grammes of cocaine. The dangerous drug had an estimated retail value at the time of its seizure of HK$173,179. Counsel for the defendant, Ms Chan, has said all that could be said for the defendant in mitigation. She tells me that the defendant’s boyfriend has been detained in Australia since November 2012 and he had entrusted his younger brother to look after her and the young child, born in July 2012, to be with financial support. That support, however, stopped and that brother even introduced her to be a drug courier to earn $3,000 per delivery. She was stupid enough to succumb to the temptation of making quick money and the financial pressure at the time. Counsel refers me to the case of HKSAR v Kwok Cheuk Man [2005] 3 HKLRD 699 in which the Court of Appeal exercised mercy. That was a robbery case. The offence took place at 3.00 am when the defendant entered a convenience store, holding an object that resembled a napalm and a cigarette lighter and robbed $182. No one was injured. The defendant had a clear record and allegedly committed the offence because he was heavily indebted. The sentencing judge adopted a starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment and reduced the term to 5 years and 4 months on account of plea. On appeal, the Court of Appeal took into account the fact that the defendant committed the offence since he was under great financial difficulties and suffered great hardship and pressure, that the offence was committed during a quiet time of the day, and that the objects that the defendant used could not possibly cause any casualties. The court was prepared to make an exception and reduced the defendant’s sentence to 4½ years. That is a totally exceptional case and the main thrust of the case was that the defendant was 38 years of age and the so-called weapon that he was carrying was in fact not able to cause casualties and the amount robbed was $182. All these circumstances were very exceptional to a robbery case. The case before me today bears little resemblance and does not justify any exercise of mercy save that I am sympathetic with the defendant for losing the opportunity to look after the child in his young years. According to the case of Attorney General v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342, sentencing guidelines for heroin are applicable to cocaine. In the case of The Queen v Lau Tak Ming & Ors [1990] 2 HKLR 370, for trafficking in 50 to 200 grammes of heroin, 8 to 12 years of imprisonment should be imposed. For the present case, which involves 108 grammes of cocaine, I consider that a starting point of 9 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. I have not forgotten the letters written by the family members and the defendant herself to me seeking leniency but in such a serious offence as drug trafficking, personal circumstances matter little. However, the defendant is entitled to a full one-third discount for her guilty plea. In the result, she should go to gaol for 6 years and that is the sentence I pass. |
Cases cited in this judgment