COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.
The defendant arrived at Hong Kong International Airport from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Her suitcase was searched by Customs officers and a packet of drugs was found in a false compartment. She admitted that she lived in Bangkok and was arranged to meet someone in India. She was given the suitcase and went to Malaysia under instruction. She was to deliver the suitcase to Guangzhou via Hong Kong.
Upon analysis, the drugs were found to be 3,238.12 grammes of a mixture containing 2,106.29 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. The retail value of the heroin was around HK$1.1 million.
By way of mitigation, I am told that the defendant is now aged 51 She has a clear record in Hong Kong. She used to be married and now has three daughters who are all in their 20s. After her divorce, she lived with her boyfriend and became unemployed in 2006. Being in need of money to start their own small business, a friend suggested to her to deliver dangerous drugs. She was promised US$4,000 in return. That was what led her to the commission of the present offence.
In sentencing the defendant, I have taken into account the nature of the offence, the kind of drugs involved, the sentencing tariff, as well as mitigation forwarded. I have also taken into account her guilty plea.
For trafficking in heroin weighing above 600 grammes, a starting point of more than 20 years is to be adopted. In the case of HKSAR v Chan Chung Kit, CACC 295/2001, the defendant trafficked in 1,803.15 grammes of heroin. That case did not involve any international element. The Court of Appeal was of the view that the 21 years’ starting point adopted by the trial judge was too low.
In HKSAR v Ban Ping Yu, CACC 102/2000, the defendant there arrived in Hong Kong from Bangkok and was found to be in possession of 2,298.09 grammes of heroin. The drugs there were intended for the Hong Kong market. The starting point of 24 years was approved by the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal in the case of Ho Kam Fu, CACC 402/2003, said that for 2.91 kilograms of heroin, the starting point should be one of not less than 25 years.
In HKSAR v Darwin Ibrahim, CACC 112/2003, the Court of Appeal was of the view that the appellant’s trip to Hong Kong was purely for the purpose of trafficking in a dangerous drug which clearly showed an international element involved. The court said that whilst it had great sympathy with the defendant’s family circumstances, such could play no part in mitigation of drug offences.
In the case of Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342, Vice President Silke said this:
“The fact that the respondent did not intend to spread the drugs in Hong Kong was irrelevant. To consider as mitigation that they are not intended for local consumption is to ignore the international aspects of the drug-trafficking trade. That is a factor which very much should be in the minds of the sentencing judges.
Further, in hard drug cases, the element of deterrence in the quantum of the sentence always plays a large part.”
Taking into account the international factor and the amount of drugs involved in the present case, I adopt a starting point of 24 years.
I shall give her the full one-third discount for her plea of guilty and she is sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment.