CRIMINAL CASE NO. 254 OF 2011
COURT: I have to sentence you for trafficking in dangerous drugs.
You will have been told that the sentencing in such cases is based upon guidelines, and those guidelines are based on the nature and the quantity of the drug.
In your case, the drug was heroin, and you carried 3.45 kilograms of it in a mixture of 4.95 kilograms.
Accordingly, following a case called Abbas, which laid down guidelines for large amounts of heroin, you fall in the category that runs from 1,200 to 4,000 grammes, attracting a starting point after trial of imprisonment of 23 to 26 years.
From the starting point has to be made allowance for any aggravation, and the aggravation in your case is that you were bringing the drugs across international boundaries, and that would normally attract a starting point of an extra 2 years.
I have indicated to your counsel that I am prepared to deal with you on the basis that you are a woman who was easily led, that you come from a simple background and you lacked education, and that you were exploited by a man in Guangzhou. I suspect that you had little appreciation of all of the consequences that would follow, and I am willing to proceed on the basis that you might not have known the exact amount of drugs you were carrying, but you were clearly reckless as to the amount.
Accordingly, even though the weight takes me to the top end of the guideline, the role mitigates that, the role of being an exploited courier, and I shall take a starting point of 23 years. To that I shall add only 1 year for the international element, because the mitigation of being exploited attaches to that as well.
The result is a sentence of imprisonment of 24 years.
Have a seat. I want to say something really for the ears of your counsel.
The work of this particular court has engaged nothing but similar cases to this over much of this year. The picture of a woman exploited by someone in China and used to carry drugs knowingly is a familiar one.
It seems to me that the tariff for the guidelines set out in Abbas is directed both to couriers and those who organise the couriers, and those who are the true kingpins in the drug trafficking trade.
The regrettable fact is though that this court deals, for very much the most part, with only the couriers. The others escape justice.
The allowance that our practice allows for the role being just that of an exploited courier is a limited one. It is my understanding that other jurisdictions like Australia and England will give a far greater allowance to reflect the gravity of the role played by the defendant.
As I say, I have seen many ladies in your situation. The degree of moral culpability between you has been narrow, small; yet following the guidelines has led me to pass very different sentences, some in the tens of years, some in the twenties. In other words, it seems to me that the guidelines do not adequately respond to the different degree of moral culpability.
In making those remarks, I have voiced a concern, but they are not to be taken in any way that would undermine the serious view these courts have of trafficking in dangerous drugs, and they are not to raise any hope or expectation in you that any other court above this one may interfere with your sentence to your advantage. But I have said this for the ears of your experienced counsel because he has realised he cannot invite me to ignore the guidelines and go outside them substantially, and he knows that his remedy, if any, lies in another place. All I hope is that by making these remarks it might lead to the concern I have being investigated. It may be I have got it completely wrong. If so, I regret it. But if I have got it right, then something may come from it.