CRIMINAL CASE NO. 108 OF 2010
COURT: The defendant arrived in Hong Kong on 4 October 2009, having flown from Hyderabad to Mumbai and then on to Hong Kong, where she was stopped at the Customs.
There, her suitcase was found to contain three handbags which contained, in combined total, a mixture containing 668.59 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 148.14 grammes of monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride.
The street value of these drugs was assessed at $809,789.40.
Now, the Government Chemist who examined the drugs, Dr Ng Po-king, found that the drugs were divided into six bags, each weighing just over or just under 136.12 grammes in terms of pure narcotic weight, albeit the weight of the mixture as a whole was over a kilo.
The heroin hydrochloride and the monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride, which Dr Ng described as a salt of an ester of morphine, were mixed together. She explained in a supplementary statement which was specifically designed to deal with the nature of monoacetylmorphine that - and I am going to read from paragraphs 3 and 4 of the report as it is not a drug which is widely referred to:
“Heroin (also called diacetylmorphine) and monoacetylmorphine are both acetylation products of morphine. Heroin produced by the chemical process of acetylation may contain a certain amount of monoacetylmorphine due to incomplete acetylation. Heroin may also be partially hydrolyzed by moisture to form monoacetylmorphine.
Like heroin hydrochloride, monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride is a narcotic analgesic with similar potency and is controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (1st Schedule, Part 1) as a salt of ester of morphine. Heroin hydrochloride and monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride together can also be named as salts of esters of morphine (SEM).”
Mr Adams, for the defendant, did not take issue with Dr Ng’s expert opinion, and it follows, therefore, as he agreed, that the quantity of drugs in this case, which for sentencing purposes can be treated as heroin, is 816.73 grammes.
As the defendant had only just arrived in Hong Kong for the express purpose of trafficking, albeit en route to the mainland, her previous record in Hong Kong is of no significance whatsoever, and of course she has a clear record.
It is an aggravating feature in the case, again as Mr Adams sensibly appreciated, that the defendant is an international courier. Her account was that someone who she knew as Paul used her to carry drugs in return for US$3,000 on account and a further US$2,000 when she had successfully delivered the drugs in Guangzhou.
What is to the defendant’s credit is that she has pleaded guilty to the trafficking, and this factor will be reflected in the sentence which has to be passed.
The guidelines for cases involving trafficking in over 600 grammes of either heroin or cocaine are set out in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437, in which a number of other authorities are considered, including some which deal with the international element in drug trafficking.
The guidelines in Abdallah supplement those set out in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 and, for the purposes of this case, provide that for between 600 and 1200 grammes of heroin, a sentence of between 20 and 23 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate.
The starting point is to be enhanced where there exists an aggravating factor such as international trafficking, including, of course, trafficking across the border with the mainland. Here, the weight of heroin was just over 800 grammes. An appropriate starting point, in my judgment, is one of 21 years’ imprisonment, enhanced by 1 year to take into account the international element, making 22 years in all.
As you have pleaded guilty, this will be reduced by one‑third to 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, which is the sentence you must now serve.