COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 0.73 of a kilogramme of a mixture containing 0.48 of a kilogramme of heroin hydrochloride. He has been committed to this court for sentencing.
The facts are all too common in that the defendant was stopped on arrival at Hong Kong International Airport, having taken a flight from Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, via Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He was subsequently taken to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital where he discharged a total of 51 packets. The substance was subsequently analysed and found to contain the drug as stipulated in the charge.
The total estimated retail value of the drug around the time of the seizure was in the region of HK$585,460.
The defendant is a 32-year-old married man, a native of Tanzania and has two children, a son of 8 and a daughter of 2.
As in most of these cases, almost all of these cases of trafficking that come before this court, the accused is not a well-educated man and was living almost below the poverty line in his country. I am informed by Mr Richmond in mitigation that he had to not only take care of his own children but also his two young nephews left orphans by the death of his sister. Because of his heavy family responsibilities, he was tempted by the fact of the reward of US$5,000 to bring the drug into Hong Kong.
He has not collected his reward and he will be punished with a long sentence in Hong Kong. It is unfortunate, as Mr Richmond points out, that he is an easy but willing target in this. In the world of drug trafficking, they use people like the defendant to do their dirty deeds for them and we in Hong Kong see defendants coming from all different parts of the world. It used to be South America and now it is from Africa.
The only way in order to perhaps educate the people is to inform them through newspapers in their own country about the very heavy sentences that will be given to defendants arrested in Hong Kong for drug trafficking and how it is not worth the small reward that is given for them to be kept away from their families for such a long time.
As Mr Richmond has pointed out, the courts in Hong Kong have guidelines for sentencing and in this case, the guideline has been laid down in the case of Lau Tak Ming in 1990. As correctly identified by Mr Richmond, for trafficking in between 400 to 600 grammes of heroin, a guideline sentence of between 15 to 20 years is recommended by the Court of Appeal.
The amount that the defendant carried into Hong Kong would merit a starting point of between 16 to 17 years’ imprisonment, after trial. There is also the aggravating factor of the international importation of the drugs into Hong Kong and that would merit an upward sentence increase of 2 years.
Taking into account everything that has been said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Richmond and the facts of the case, I consider that an appropriate starting point in this case would be 16 years. Then added to that will be 2 years for the importation, giving a total of 18 years.
With the factor that the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, he is entitled to one-third for that, so the defendant is sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.