HKSAR v. MUGISHA GODET

HCCC 276/2024

[2025] HKCFI 1249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 276 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

The Charge

1.  On 29 August 2024, in the Eastern Magistracy, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, involving 698 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 692 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as “ICE”).  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 13 June 2024 and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed his guilty plea to the trafficking count and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.  The facts of the case can be summarized as follows. 

3.  On 24 January 2023, the defendant arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport from Uganda via Ethiopia.  He was later escorted to the arrival hall for customs clearance.  He was found to be wearing under his trousers two pairs of bicycle shorts and a pair of underwear, under which two packets of foreign objects were concealed.  The packets were later found to contain the subject dangerous drugs of the trafficking count.  Their street value was estimated to be about HK$439,740.

4.  In a subsequent interview under caution, the defendant admitted that he was from Uganda, and he and his wife had owed debts of around 1.5 million Ugandan Shillings (i.e. about HK$3,170).  His friend known as “Livingstone” had told him that there was a deal for him to make some money to solve all his problems.  The friend would get him a ticket to Hong Kong, pay for his flight, visa and accommodation.  The defendant agreed to make the trip because he needed the money.  The US$350 found on him was part of the money his friend had paid him.  He had expected to be paid another US$350 upon return to Uganda.

5.  The defendant further admitted that on 23 January 2023, at a hotel in Uganda, his friend gave him the underwear with the two packets inside to put on and two pairs of bicycle shorts to wear over the underwear.  He thought that was suspicious but he wanted the money.  His friend then gave him the tickets, itinerary and hotel booking and the defendant went to the airport alone.  He was told once he arrived at the hotel in Hong Kong, someone would be waiting for him.  The defendant had expected to return to Uganda on 29 January 2023.

6.  In his mobile phone, there were messages which showed that a contact person kept asking the defendant to update him with his location and to let him know once he had arrived at the airport in Hong Kong.

7.  The defendant admitted that at the material times, he had trafficked in the dangerous drugs seized by importing them into Hong Kong.

Background and Mitigation

8.  The defendant is now 40 years old and he holds a Ugandan passport.  He described himself to have “an ordinary level of education”.  He had worked as a hotel manager until he lost his job due to the Covid-19 pandemic.  He was then forced to work as a farmer with a monthly income of about HK$105.  His offending was due to the fact that he was in debt of about 1.5 million Ugandan Shillings (i.e. about HK$3,170).  He is a man with no previous convictions.  He is married with two young children and a dependent.  The defendant, his wife, friends and church leaders have submitted various letters to this Court in support of his mitigation.

9.  Mr. Sherry, his counsel, submitted that the defendant was no more than a simple courier who had no influence at all over this operation of trafficking of drugs from Uganda to Hong Kong.

Sentence

10.  In sentencing the defendant, I will follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

11.  The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question.  According to the latest decision of the Court of Appeal in Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, the relevant sentencing band for trafficking in ICE between 600 grammes and 1,500 grammes would be 18 to 20 years’ imprisonment after trial.  I understand this sentencing band is not as heavy compared to the relevant band as explained in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691.  I shall apply this less heavy sentencing band to the advantage of the defendant. This band applies to defendants who are couriers or storekeepers.

12.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant.  There is no evidence to suggest the defendant’s role being greater than that of a courier and I accept Mr Sherry’s submission that he had no influence over the trafficking operation other than merely being the mule of the drugs.  However, there is an international element that should be considered as a factor in assessing the defendant’s role.  In the present case, he must have known well that he was bringing the dangerous drugs from Uganda to Hong Kong, although he might not have fully appreciated the enormity of what he was doing and the appalling consequences of the punishment: see HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho (supra)  at §§58 and 74. 

13.  The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band the defendant should come.  On a strictly arithmetical basis, with the quantity of ICE in question, the notional starting point should be around 18 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.  Given his role being an international courier as I have described, I shall increase the starting point by one year and one month so that it becomes 19 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

14.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  As I have already taken into account the international element in assessing his role, I will not double-count it as an aggravating factor.  There are no other aggravating factors in this case.

15.  The fifth step is to take into account mitigating factors, if any.  The Court of Appeal has repeatedly held that personal circumstances and financial difficulties count very little, if any, in cases as serious as the present one.  The strongest mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s timely plea.  I will give the full one-third discount to the defendant, and that brings the sentence down from 19 years and 3 months to 12 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. 

16.  The defendant has submitted a letter from Father Wotherspoon in which his participation in the Father’s anti-drug campaign was outlined.

17.  It should not be taken for granted that a defendant’s participation in the campaign will automatically result in a discount in sentencing.  It is clearly discretionary.  In the present case, however, the defendant’s participation in the campaign is indicative of his further remorse and willingness to warn others not to fall into the same trap as he did.  I shall treat it as a further mitigating factor and reduce the sentence by 3 months to one of 12 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

18.  Lastly, I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

Exhibits

19.  Order in terms of the Prosecution’s application, not objected to by the Defence, was granted.