COURT: The defendant, now aged 34, pleaded guilty to trafficking in a mixture containing 490 grammes of heroin hydrochloride when she appeared at Eastern Magistrates Court on 25 January 2013. She has confirmed her plea today and has also agreed with the facts outlined by the prosecution.
The picture which emerges is one which is all too familiar. The defendant, travelling on a Tanzanian passport, was stopped in the green channel at the Customs Arrival Hall in the Hong Kong International Airport. She had arrived on a flight from Darussalam via Addis Ababa. Her baggage was searched but nothing incriminating was found there. She was taken to a hospital where, over the course of four days, she discharged a total of 90 pellets.
The mixture weighed just under a kilo and would have retailed on the streets at $715,860. As the defendant will have known all along, she was taking a huge risk in doing this, both in terms of being caught as well as to her personal health.
Someone had clearly made it worth her while to take the risk. But as she chose to remain silent when questioned at the time of her arrest, it was not until today that it became apparent as to what had tempted her to take this course. I am told by Ms Wong in her excellent mitigation speech that the defendant had been promised US$5,000. In fact, this is partially borne out by the fact that in her possession the defendant was found with US$4,000.
The sentencing guidelines in The Queen v Lau Tak Ming & Anor [1990] 2 HKLR at 370 provide, as the defendant has been advised, a tariff band of between 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment for 400 to 600 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. In my judgment, an appropriate starting point under the guidelines for this large quantity would be 17 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
There is, however, an additional factor to be considered. This was trafficking by means of importation which has for so long been regarded as an aggravating factor. I would normally have taken an overall starting point of 18 years but I have been handed the sentencing remarks of Deputy High Court Judge Geiser in HCCC 171 of 2009 where the African trafficker was, like this defendant, also pregnant and bringing in slightly more than this defendant, but only slightly more.
The judge in that case took a 17½-year starting point and made no reference to the aggravating factor of importation. But the whole purpose of guidelines of course is to achieve parity of sentence between defendants so that they will not feel a grievance when they are serving their sentence on hearing that others of almost identical culpability have received less.
In the very special circumstances of this case what I propose to do is to augment the 17 year and 3 months’ starting point by 3 months to 17½ years having been persuaded by Ms Wong that I should do so.
In any event, this is a dreadful case with a defendant who is pregnant at the moment and it is an unpleasant duty to have to consider sentences of this length.
Would you stand, please? You are going to receive full credit for your plea of guilty. The sentence after the discount which is normally accorded to those who have entered a timely plea, is one of 11 years and 8 months, which is precisely the same as the sentence imposed in the case of Muyonga Jacquiline Andalo, HCCC 171/2009. Your sentence should have been slightly longer but for the reasons I have explained, I have kept it to that.
In addition, I’m going to order that you contribute all the money that was found in your possession to the costs of the defence in this case. In other words, I shall order that the US$4,000 which was found in the items seized from you should go to the Legal Aid Fund, to pay at least in part for the defence of yourself. Otherwise, I will make an order in terms so far as the remaining exhibits are concerned.