COURT: Defendant, you have been convicted after trial of an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs. During the trial, you raised the defence of duress. That is that you were forced to bring, transport these drugs from Addis Ababa to Hong Kong, which drugs were concealed inside your body. The jury have clearly rejected your defence and I shall sentence you on that basis.
As a general summary of the facts of this case, the defendant, you are a South African national who arrived in Hong Kong at the Hong Kong International Airport on 3 January 2020 on a flight from Addis Ababa. You were intercepted by customs at the green channel and no contraband was found after examination of your luggage or a search of your person.
However, after an X-ray at the North Lantau Hospital, foreign objects were seen inside your body. You were then transferred to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and there over a period of a few days you discharged 66 capsules containing 642 grammes of a solid which contained 540 grammes of cocaine.
The origin of your trip to Hong Kong began in South Africa, Johannesburg, which is where you are from. That commenced on 1 January 2020.
The facts as I find it in this case, given the jury has rejected your defence and found you unanimously guilty, is that I accept that you owed a person by the name of King money to which you could not repay. However, as a result of not being able to repay him, you voluntarily and willingly participated in transporting these drugs to Hong Kong.
The willing participation is the fact that this passport to which you arrived in Hong Kong was issued in October 2019. That would mean you applied for the passport in or about September or at least earlier. There are no other stamps in your passport which shows you had not left South Africa. I do not accept your story that this passport was obtained for the purposes of travel to Zimbabwe as you mentioned in your evidence. As by that time, you were heavily in debt.
It is my finding on the facts to which I sentence you is that you were well prepared in September to co-operate with this person, King, to bring drugs to Hong Kong and you were a very willing participant. You knew the consequences of bringing drugs to Hong Kong. According to your own evidence, you knew you were taking a huge risk because in your evidence you said if you were arrested, who would support your children. You came here to Hong Kong with open eyes, knowing the risk that you were to face if you were caught.
I accept the fact that you were a drug mule in that you were the courier concealing these drugs within your body and you were to hand these drugs over to somebody in Hong Kong. The story that you gave that you only had a one-way ticket or you thought you had one-way ticket, I also reject. It is most unbelievable that you would come here only on a one-way ticket. Clearly, your itinerary showed that you had a return fare.
You travelled across the world with this consignment of dangerous drugs concealed inside your person. As a result of that, you were bringing drugs into Hong Kong, and as the Court of Appeal said in Raman Kapusamy [2024] 2 HKLRD 955, “anyone”, at paragraph 69:
“...anyone who brings dangerous drugs across the border is fuelling the supply of drugs on the streets of Hong Kong with all the terrible consequences they bring for individuals and society, whatever the unfortunate circumstances of their background and involvement. It is of little comfort to the families and communities whose lives are blighted by dangerous drugs to know that the defendant who brought the drugs into Hong Kong had financial problems, who drove him to commit such a serious crime against our citizens in Hong Kong or of another country.”
This offence, as I am sure your counsel has told you, is indeed a very, very serious offence. You had brought in drugs in your body estimated at a value of approximately $720,000.
You are a man of clear record, no criminal convictions. You are 48 years old. At the time of the commission of this offence, you were 44 years of age. You had entered into a second marriage of which you had five children. You had four children from your previous marriage.
Prior to May 2019, you had been a security guard ever since you left school. You had completed high school, two levels, two years of high school. That is your background.
Mr Bullett rightly says that the sentencing approach to sentencing in drug trafficking cases in Hong Kong are the ones laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and complemented in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150.
The first step in sentencing defendants who commit drug trafficking offences is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. The drug in this case is the drug cocaine. The tariff case for the drug heroin and cocaine is laid out in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370. Pursuant to the tariff, where an amount is trafficked between 400 and 600 grammes, the Court of Appeal decided in Lau Tak Ming that the starting point in sentencing for those amounts should be between 15 and 20 years’ imprisonment. Here, the amount you trafficked in was 540 grammes of cocaine. That amount by itself would, arithmetically speaking, attract a sentence starting point of 18 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence. This includes the international element involved. As I have already referred to Raman Kapusamy, the Court of Appeal in that case in April this year, held that the international element was to be considered as part of the assessment of the offender’s role and culpability. The international element is really the fact that these drugs were brought into Hong Kong from another country. In this case, defendant, there was clearly an international element as you brought these drugs from abroad into Hong Kong.
The third step is to identify where in the relevant band, that is in the band of between 15 and 20 years, you come. I bear in mind that you were a willing participant who concealed drugs in your body to avoid detection from authorities. You knowingly came into Hong Kong, knowing of the risk that you would be caught and arrested and you were bringing these drugs, of course, from abroad and therefore there is an international element. On those facts, I shall increase that starting point by a year and sentence you to 19 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
Defendant, I must then go on to decide whether there is any mitigating factors on your behalf. In drug trafficking cases as serious as this, personal circumstances count for very little. I do not consider there to be any mitigating factors in this case. Regarding aggravating factors, I also do not regard there to be any aggravating factors in this case.
The sixth step is for me to observe the overall sentence passed and ensure that it is a fair, just, and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this offence and of you, the offender. I consider that is so.
The defendant, in the circumstances, you are sentenced to serve the term of 19 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.