There was a Customs check and nothing suspicious was found in his luggage but when he was searched in a private room and removed his shoes for examination, they were found to be unusually heavy. They were examined and were found to contain approximately half a kilo of cocaine hidden inside the sole of each shoe.
Under caution, the defendant admitted that the shoes belonged to him but he did not know what the white powder was that they had extracted from the soles.
The following day in a video-recorded interview, he admitted that he had agreed to bring the drugs hidden in the shoes into Hong Kong from Johannesburg for a reward of US$5,000. He had not been paid and would have been paid when the drugs were collected from his Hong Kong hotel room.
The defendant’s case which was rejected by the jury was that he was coming to Hong Kong on business, a client had contacts in Hong Kong. That client helped him arrange his trip and would arrange an introduction in Hong Kong. That client then gave him a pair of black leather shoes in a bag.
That client asked him to bring those shoes to Hong Kong to pass to his business contact. The defendant agreed and thought nothing of it. He had no idea the shoes contained drugs.
The defendant’s background
As I said, the defendant is from Benin and was born there in 1968. He is now 54 years old. He has a clear record in Hong Kong but he has never been to Hong Kong. He is married and has five children, they range from between 31 years old and 12-year-old twins. Sadly his wife very recently suddenly passed away.
In Benin, he had his own business and was selling electronic equipment relating to information technology. I also know from a doctor’s confirmation from a visit to North Lantau Hospital after his arrest that he is suffering from asthma and HIV.
In mitigation, Mr Percy has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant. He has outlined his background and emphasised the tragic situation of his family now that his wife has passed away since he has been detained in Hong Kong. Mr Percy knows that there is not much else he can say in mitigation but asks for leniency. I sympathise with the defendant’s younger children but the community in Hong Kong considers trafficking drugs a very serious offence and it is well known problems associated with drug abuse lead to serious and often life-changing consequences.
Family circumstances carry little weight in mitigation especially when the defendant travelled to Hong Kong leaving behind his family and knowing the risk.
Sentencing
I have taken into account the authority relating to sentencing the offence of drug trafficking as laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph. I have considered the six-step sentencing approach. In this case, I accept and I am satisfied that the defendant was a courier delivering those drugs. Therefore his sentence is to be determined by the relevant tariffs and the quantity of drugs involved.
There is an aggravating factor and that is he is importing drugs into Hong Kong. There is an international element and I have considered HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun. The tariff for trafficking in cocaine follows the tariff for trafficking in heroin. I have considered Attorney General v Pedro Nel Rojas.
For this present case, the tariffs follow that laid down in R v Lau Tak Ming and Others. Where between 600 to 1,200 grammes is involved, this will attract a sentence of between 20 and 23 years’ imprisonment. In the present case for 806 grammes of cocaine, the mathematical starting point is 21 years’ imprisonment.
I have to take into account the international element and have considered submissions. I will increase the mathematical starting point by 15 months. Therefore the overall starting point for the defendant is 22 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
There is no other reason or factor to consider, therefore I sentence the defendant to 22 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.