HKSAR v. SHAMBE SHAMSA GULAM

HCCC230/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 230 OF 2011

-----------------

-----------------

------------------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

------------------------------------------

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty at Eastern Magistrates' Court on 24 June 2011 and has confirmed that plea in these proceedings. In short, the defendant, who is a 37-year-old Tanzanian citizen, arrived on 10 January 2011 on a flight from Addis Ababa.

She was about to be searched by a Customs official when she stated that she had half a kilo of drugs around her waist. She was also found to have a sock containing drugs which she carried between her legs and more drugs inside her brassiere. Altogether, 115 packets were found which, on analysis, were found to contain 450 grammes of cocaine, 530 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 150 grammes of monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride, which is effectively the same as heroin hydrochloride in terms of its potency, and both are salts of esters of morphine, S.E.M.

Sentencing tariffs for cocaine and heroin hydrochloride are the same, so that the total narcotic content of 1.13 kilograms can be looked at together. These drugs had a combined street value estimated at $1,347,630. The defendant’s motive for acting as a courier for these drugs was, according to the account she gave later in interview, that she had been promised US$10,000 on her return to Tanzania. She also said that she had been unable to swallow the drugs, which is why instead she had packed them onto her body.

The tariff for this large quantity of drugs is plainly set out in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437. The defendant has no doubt been fully informed by Mr Acton-Bond who has dealt in great detail in the mitigation speech which he provides in which was said everything possible on behalf of this defendant that could be said. He has no doubt provided the defendant with advice as to what the likely sentence must be.

For this quantity I shall take a starting point of 22 years’ imprisonment which must be enhanced by 2 years to take into account the international element. In all, therefore, I take the view that a sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment is appropriate after trial. In this case, the defendant has entered a timely plea and she will receive full credit for that.

Would you stand up, please? Your sentence is one of 16 years’ imprisonment.