You were intercepted by officers of the Customs & Excise Department at Hong Kong International Airport after arriving on a flight from Malaysia.
Those officers suspected that you were transporting drugs within your body and sent you to Queen Elizabeth Hospital for examination.
Investigation confirmed the presence of foreign objects within your body and you ultimately discharged 35 packets of drugs.
You subsequently admitted purchasing the drugs in Kuala Lumpur for US$4,500 and of intending to sell them in Guangzhou. In Hong Kong dollar terms their estimated retail value is $300,403.67.
In different cases the Hong Kong Court of Appeal has set out a number of principles and sentencing guidelines for judges to follow when sentencing a defendant convicted of a drug trafficking offence. These will have been explained to you by your counsel.
The first is that the sentencing range is determined by the quantity of narcotic being trafficked, not the powder in which it is contained. This means that the quantity for which I must sentence you is 244.37 grammes.
This quantity falls within a sentencing band that covers trafficking in 200 to 400 grammes of heroin for which the sentencing range should be 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment.
However, the Court of Appeal has said that should there be an aggravating factor present then the starting point for the sentence should be enhanced. It listed a number of aggravating factors, one of which is that an international element is involved in the commission of the offence.
When drugs are transported across borders then an international element is involved and, of course, this is what happened in your case.
The Court of Appeal said that when the amount of the drugs being trafficked was above 1 kilogramme the enhancement should be not less than 2 years’ imprisonment and 2 years appears to have now become the norm for these larger amounts of heroin.
For amounts of less than 1 kilogramme the amount of the increase in the starting point of sentence is within my discretion.
As Mr Mitchell has pointed out the existence of these sentencing guidelines and tariffs leave little room for mitigation. But you should understand that there are reasons why our Court of Appeal has limited the operation for mitigation.
It wishes to emphasise the seriousness of this offence and achieve consistency in the sentencing of offenders so that anyone, no matter their role, will realise they will receive a very harsh sentence.
Secondly, it wishes to deter those who would otherwise be tempted by the opportunity for quick financial reward to engage in the trafficking of drugs.
The reason for the international element is because trafficking so often involves the transporting of drugs across borders and even though in your case the drugs were not to be distributed in Hong Kong, Hong Kong has obligations to other governments and other countries to do what it can to protect them from drug trafficking.
Even though I am bound to follow the sentencing guidelines and tariffs laid down by the Court of Appeal I still have some discretion as to the sentence that I impose.
Unfortunately I cannot take into account the fact that you are a young man because it is not unusual for young people to be exploited in drug trafficking. I know that as a foreigner serving your sentence here in Hong Kong will be harder on you but again I am not allowed to take that into account.
I accept that you come from a disadvantaged background which makes it far easier for you to be tempted by the opportunity for large financial reward but again I am not allowed to take that into account.
However, I accept that when you come out from prison you will have lost the opportunity to enjoy these early years of your youth. You will be sent back to your home country and I accept that you will find it difficult to settle back in there and to establish a life for yourself.
I know you have had a prior conviction here in Hong Kong but for the purposes of sentencing you for this offence I take no notice of it.
Many of the people who are sentenced by this court for trafficking are solely involved in it in the very limited capacity of being mules, that is people whose bodies or luggage is being used to transport drugs.
You are not in that category. You are at least one level above that because you expected to sell these drugs yourself and to obtain a profit from it.
The mules are truly exploited persons who obtain very little financial benefit from their role and never receive anything of the significant financial rewards that are available to the actual traffickers. I bear that in mind when determining the sentence that I should impose upon you.
In your case the quantity of drugs is within the 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment band as it covers trafficking in 200 to 400 grammes. As the quantity in which you trafficked is just above 200 grammes I adopt 12 years as my starting point.
Because there is present the aggravating factor of an international element I must increase that starting point by an amount less than 2 years. Because you were more than just a mule I increase your sentence by 1 year.
That means the final starting point for your sentence is 13 years’ imprisonment which I must then discount to allow for your plea of guilty. After doing that the resulting sentence is 8 years and 6 months.
I have considered everything that your counsel has said on your behalf and examined carefully what he has said to see whether there is anything in it which would justify me discounting your sentence further.
However, I can find nothing in it which would allow me to do so. I therefore sentence you to 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.