COURT: I have to sentence you for trafficking in a dangerous drug. The drug was heroin and you were in possession of 470 grammes; it was contained in 69 pellets which you had swallowed. You were caught at our airport. It is a familiar story.
You will have been told that sentences for such conduct are regulated by guidelines which are based on the nature and quantity of the drug. For an amount of heroin such as you carried, you fall into the category that runs from 400 to 600 grammes. That attracts a starting point of imprisonment of between 15 and 20 years.
You know you earn a one-third discount by reason of your plea of guilty.
You will also be aware that bring drugs across an international boundary is regarded as an aggravation. The guideline case of Abdallah talks of sentences of not less than 2 years for amounts of 1 kilogramme or more. It seems to me that the courts, for amounts of less than 1 kilogramme, but in excess of half a kilogramme, take a year as reflecting rightly the aggravation, but at 470 grammes, you are just under the half a kilogramme and I will make that 6 months in your case.
So the overall starting point is one of 15 and a half years. If I apply the one-third discount to that, it gives a sentence of 10 years and 4 months.
I have no doubt what I am told about you and your background in Tanzania is correct and I see in this court a lot of people from your country who have been recruited in the sort of circumstances described by your counsel.
I have put you right at the bottom end of the bracket, notwithstanding mathematically I could push you up a little way, because you were just a courier. Saying “just a courier” does not diminish the seriousness of your conduct, but it does mark the fact that your role is at the bottom end of the possible roles in international drug trafficking.
I appreciate that your imprisonment here will prejudice your immediate family - your children may not be educated - and will cause hardship to your extended family, because you supported more than your immediate family.
The sentencing, whilst it must sound very mathematical to you, is not entirely maths. I ask myself whether the extra four months is really necessary in the circumstances and I have decided it is not.
The sentence that I shall pass upon you is 10 years.
I can see a purist may object, “Well, the judge has added an aggravation of 6 months, then he has taken it away again.” In fact, that aggravation still exists in the sentence. What I have done is just given greater weight to the mitigation and reduced by that modest amount to give the round figure of 10 years to reflect the general mitigation and especially your role as a courier.
In those circumstances, I judge that a sentence of 10 years is the least that you could expect and whilst it might have been said I have been lenient in your case, I judge that sentence adequately reflects the mischief of your particular case.