CRIMINAL CASE NO. 82 OF 2012
COURT: On 2 March of this year the defendant pleaded guilty at the Eastern Magistracy to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to sections 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134. She was on that day committed pursuant to section 81B of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap. 227, to this court for sentence.
Today she has confirmed that plea of guilty.
The particulars of the offence are that the defendant, on 4 August 2011, at the Hong Kong International Airport, trafficked in 0.7 kilogrammes of a mixture which contained 0.37 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride and 0.15 kilogrammes of monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride.
The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant and confirmed before me today reveals that on 4 August she arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport on a flight from Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. Whilst an examination of her luggage revealed nothing untoward, she was taken to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital as it was suspected that she may have been carrying drugs internally.
Those suspicions proved to be correct. An x‑ray examination revealed the presence of foreign objects inside her body. She subsequently discharged over a two-week period 100 pellets. The contents of those pellets upon analysis by the Government Chemist were determined to be 0.79 kilogrammes of a mixture which itself contained 0.37 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride and 0.15 kilogrammes of monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride, both of which, it is accepted and admitted, are salts of esters of morphine with a similar potency.
Thus, for the purposes of sentencing, they may be properly taken together. The street value of these dangerous drugs was almost HK$530,000.
The defendant is a South African national now aged 45. The antecedents statement prepared by the Customs & Excise officer reveals little of her circumstances beyond the fact that she is not herself a drug user. She is divorced and has been educated up to a secondary level.
Before me today Mr Hotten, on her behalf, quite properly accepts that the principal mitigation that can be advanced on her behalf is her plea of guilty, which clearly reflects her remorse. He points to the fact that like many persons who come before this court in similar circumstances, she is a mule. She is not the principal trafficker.
This I accept, but the Court of Appeal has made it clear that notwithstanding that, that the parameters for sentence set down in the authorities, and in particular in this case, R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370, apply equally to her.
Mr Hotten tells me that the reason she became involved in trafficking on this occasion was to provide for her children in South Africa and her elderly mother whom she is responsible to care for. He however accepts that this is not a factor in the circumstances which would permit me to depart from the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal.
Whilst the court has the utmost sympathy for persons in the defendant’s situation, nevertheless the law is clear, and the penalties that are provided for must be applied.
For the quantity of drugs concerned in the instant case - that is, 0.52 kilogrammes of heroin in its form of salts of esters of morphine, the appropriate starting point after trial would be 18 years’ imprisonment. I believe in the circumstances the fact that there is an international component in the defendant’s trafficking requires me to enhance that sentence by a period of 6 months to reflect this.
From that starting point of 18 years and 6 months after trial she will get, as she is entitled to, a full one‑third discount to reflect her plea of guilty.
That would result in a sentence of 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. That is the sentence I will impose.