CRIMINAL CASE NO. 305 OF 2012
COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty before a magistrate to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 0.64 of a kilogram of heroin hydrochloride. The defendant was committed to this court for sentencing.
The facts are all too frequent in Hong Kong. It is that the defendant is a Tanzanian male who was intercepted upon arriving in Hong Kong International Airport from Johannesburg, South Africa. He was suspected of having drugs concealed internally so he was escorted to the hospital and, upon an X-ray screening, it was discovered that he had foreign objects inside his body cavity.
Upon being arrested and cautioned, the defendant admitted that he had swallowed 80 pellets of heroin inside his body and that he was being paid US$5,000 to carry the drugs to Guangzhou.
The defendant was subsequently kept in the hospital and on the same day of his arrest, he had discharged 22 pellets of suspected dangerous drugs. During his detention in the hospital, between 14 December and 18 December, he discharged a total of 93 pellets on eight occasions.
The drugs were examined and were found to consist of 1.05 kilograms of a mixture containing 0.64 kilograms of heroin hydrochloride. The street value of these drugs was estimated at about HK$846,300.
I am told that this is the second occasion that the defendant had come to Hong Kong. He came to Hong Kong on the first occasion two months prior to his arrest.
In mitigation, Mr Loftus pointed out, correctly, that for a serious offence of this nature, the background of the defendant pales into insignificance; however, I do have to take into account the early confession of the defendant, thus saving the court’s time, and his early plea. However, this has to be balanced against the fact that the sentence has to be enhanced because of the international element.
The defendant has a clear record in Hong Kong and in mitigation, he has, through his counsel, expressed remorse and hoped that he would have a chance to turn his life around. Mr Loftus also said that he has family back home and in fact, he was in business but his monthly income was very low so that the temptation of the money to carry the drug was too much for him and he succumbed to the temptation.
This is, unfortunately, the sorry story that is frequently said in this court. The only way, apart from the heavy sentences for us to impose in Hong Kong, is for more publicity to be made back in the home country of the particular defendant to tell them that it is not worth their while to risk many years of their life in prison for the amount of money they are being paid to carry the drugs. Not only are they risking the life of themselves, because if the packets were to break inside them, it could cost them their life, but they would be deprived of their family for a long time in a foreign country.
Having said that, the Court of Appeal has already laid down guidelines for sentencing and it is, as Mr Loftus pointed out, in the case of Lau Tak Ming and Abdallah. In this case, the defendant had 640 grammes of heroin hydrochloride which would merit a sentence of over 20 years.
I do take into account everything that has been said on his behalf and I also have to bear in mind the enhancement of sentence because of the international element. So I would take a starting point of 21 years’ imprisonment.
Because of the defendant’s early plea, I will give him the full benefit of the one-third deduction. So the defendant is sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment.