CRIMINAL CASE NO. 368 OF 2010
COURT: This defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.
The dangerous drug was heroin, being 536.27 grammes of a mixture containing 305.35 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.
The facts admitted by the defendant show that she was stopped at Hong Kong International Airport when she arrived on a flight from Bangkok pending transfer to Shekou, China.
She was searched, and a packet of suspected dangerous drugs was found hidden in her underpants. When asked what it was, she said it was drugs. She was arrested, cautioned, and remained silent at that time.
The defendant was admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital, where an x‑ray revealed the presence of foreign objects inside her body. She was detained in the hospital, and between 6 and 9 June, 2010, she discharged 19 pellets.
The defendant was interviewed under caution, and admitted that when she was in Bangkok, a black female has asked her to deliver something to Guangzhou in return for US$500, and on successful delivery she would be given a further US$500.
The accused was given a number of pellets to swallow and taught how to swallow them. When she could not swallow any more, she put the remainder in her underpants. She was asked to deliver the things to Guangzhou and bring the money back to Bangkok.
The defendant said she did not know what the pellets were.
Cathay Pacific confirmed that the defendant took a flight from Bangkok to Hong Kong on 5 June 2010, and that she was to return to Bangkok on 12 June 2010. She was a frequent visitor to Hong Kong and mainland China.
The Government Chemist confirmed the nature and the quantity of the dangerous drugs as set out in the particulars of charge. The estimated retail value of the drugs at the date of the arrest was $453,148.15.
The defendant had a clear record in Hong Kong. The antecedents statement shows that she was born in Uganda; she holds a Ugandan passport; she had had upper secondary education; her date of birth was 9 October 1979; and she claimed at that time to be working as a merchant.
In mitigation I was told that she was a single mother with three children aged 3, 7 and 11. She was the sole breadwinner. Her own parents are dead.
I had produced a letter from the defendant herself setting out her circumstances, her remorse for her actions, her realisation of the devastation that drugs cause, and a request for leniency. There was a letter from her children saying that they wanted their mother released and asking for leniency. A medical certificate was produced to show that the youngest child suffers from asthmatic bronchitis, for which she requires regular treatment, and there was a letter from the elder sister setting out the complex background of the defendant’s family. Her father was polygamous; he had 20 wives and 50 children. Her own parents died of AIDS some time ago, and the defendant was responsible at an early age for 10 siblings. She became a secretary. She was offered a job in a kindergarten in Shenzhen, and then went regularly between Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
During that time, a friend in Uganda asked her to help buy goods and send them back to Uganda, and in connection with that commission, she went to Bangkok. It was there she met the black female who asked her to deliver drugs to Shekou and offered the reward of US$1,000.
Counsel advised that the defendant used the $500 she had been given in Bangkok, and that the US$2,500 found on her person was money belonging to the African businessman for whom she would buy items to send back to Uganda.
It was confirmed that she had a ticket to return to Bangkok on 12 June 2010.
The defendant’s main mitigation in this case is that she pleaded guilty and she admitted the offence when she was arrested. The complex background is prayed in aid. She says that she is remorseful, and begs the court for as lenient a sentence as possible.
On the Lau Tak Ming guidelines (The Queen v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370), this quantity of narcotic comes into the range of 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment. That is for the quantity of 200 to 400 grammes of narcotic.
I note that in this case, although the defendant was arrested at the airport, that there is evidence to show that she was not importing the drug into Hong Kong, and therefore I do not have to take into account an importation element in setting sentence.
In this case, I take a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment, and sentence her to 8 years.