HKSAR v. WAMBA ZAWADI ABASI

HCCC 207/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2855

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 207 OF 2018

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

I do not propose to read a long sermon to you about the evils of the international trade in dangerous drugs, as that is a trade to which you willingly chose to lend your aid.

The large quantity of cocaine that you brought into Hong Kong in 71 self-ingested pellets must have been very well known to you and it is, in fact, an agreed fact that the street value of those drugs was HK$851,913.

It is well established that bringing dangerous drugs into Hong Kong from overseas is a factor aggravating the offence, and it is well established that the offender should receive a higher sentence than that which would be imposed on an offender who trafficked the same quantity of drugs wholly within Hong Kong.

I know from your counsel Mr Tracy has told me that he has told you that in Hong Kong there are very strict guidelines set down for all judges as to how we are to sentence people who traffic in dangerous drugs, and those guidelines are based on the narcotic weight of the drug concerned. He will have told you that judges are expected to stick to those guidelines unless there are very special reasons for them not to do so, and there are no special reasons in your case.

Mr Tracy has told me of your personal circumstances back in Tanzania and why it was you were led to attempt to smuggle this very large quantity of drugs into Hong Kong in the way that you did.

However, Mr Tracy accepts - he tells that he has told you this - that these personal circumstances carry no mitigating weight at all when judges have to sentence people who traffic in dangerous drugs.

I have to tell you that had you taken this case to trial, had you had been found guilty by a jury and had you had no mitigation whatsoever, you would have been looking at an initial starting point sentence of 20 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. That would be based on the narcotic weight of the drug you trafficked in, which was 728 grammes of cocaine in a mixture weighing 927 grammes.

Coupled to that starting point sentence, you would have been sentenced to a further 1 year and 5 months’ imprisonment to reflect the fact that you sought to bring this cocaine into Hong Kong, so after trial you would have been looking at a total sentence of 22 years and 1 month.

You do have mitigation and it is the powerful mitigation there is. You admitted your guilt, you co-operated with the Customs and Excise Department, and you pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity our system of criminal justice allows, which is before a magistrate in the Magistrates’ Court.

That plea of guilty and that co-operation indicates remorse and it also indicates realism, a willingness to accept that you did wrong, and you are entitled to expect a substantial discount in sentence from that that you would have received had you been found guilty after trial and had no mitigation at all.

In fact, you are entitled to expect a discount of sentence of as high as one-third of the starting point sentence. I am, of course, giving you that one-third discount.

This means that, instead of 22 years and 1 month’s imprisonment for your offence, you will serve a sentence of 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

To my mind, no useful purpose would be served in my extending your sentence by a further 20 days or so. That would be the sentence that a strict mathematical calculation of a one-third discount from the starting point sentence produces. But, to my mind, when a court has to sentence an offender to a sentence of imprisonment running into many years, such niceties of arithmetic are absurd and I will disregard that 20 extra days, which the mathematical calculation produces.