CRIMINAL CASE NO. 143 OF 2011
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The dangerous drug was methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “Ice”. The quantity was 2.48 kilograms of crystalline solid containing 2.47 kilograms of the narcotic.
On 6 September 2010, Customs officers at the airport found a suspicious suitcase in the baggage handling area. X-ray and ion scanning indicated it contained suspected dangerous drugs. Customs officers seized the bag, which had come from Addis Ababa and was to be sent on to Kuala Lumpur on 7 September 2010.
On 7 September 2010 at 7.55 am, Customs officers located the owner of the bag, the accused, at the boarding gate. He admitted that the suitcase was his, and opened it with his key. There was some clothing in the suitcase, and further examination revealed two slabs of suspected dangerous drug in a concealed compartment.
Analysis by the Government Chemist confirmed the quantity and type of drug as set out in the particulars of the charge.
The accused was arrested, and under caution said he had been given the bag in Benin on 5 September 2010, and that he was to give it to somebody in Kuala Lumpur. In a Video Interview, he said he was visiting his elder brother in Kuala Lumpur, and that after six days he would return to Benin to see his sick mother, his wife and his children.
US$1,222 in cash was seized from the accused, and the street value of the drug was estimated to be HK$1,919,520.
The accused admitted that he knowingly trafficked in the dangerous drug found in his suitcase.
The defendant, who is a Ugandan national, has no criminal record in Hong Kong. He was the holder of a Ugandan passport. I was advised by his counsel that he is also entitled to a Nigerian passport, as his father was Nigerian.
The antecedents statement showed that the defendant was born on 12 September 1976 and is now 34 years old. He was educated to Upper Secondary level. He is married with a wife and two children aged 3 years and 1 year. His wife aged 38, is a housewife, and his mother, who is aged 86 years, is in poor health. It appears from the antecedents statement that he also has an elder brother.
The defendant, who was educated to a stage where he can read and write English, worked independently after leaving school by selling clothes and, later, computer parts. He earned on average, at the time of his arrest, US$450 a month. After his marriage in 2007 he was the sole breadwinner, and the family finances deteriorated.
Under those circumstances, a long-term friend persuaded him to earn quick money by bringing dangerous drugs to other countries, and he was promised, in this case, US$10,000 on the successful delivery of drugs from Benin to Kuala Lumpur.
I was advised that the defendant is extremely remorseful. He understands he is facing a long sentence and that he will not see his family for a very long period of time; he seeks leniency from the court in terms of sentence.
Prior to this hearing the court received a copy of a letter that was sent by the defendant to the Chief Executive, asking for a pardon. The letter was passed to the Judiciary, because at that stage the matter had not been dealt with. In that letter, the defendant said that he was a courier, not the mastermind. He asked for leniency as his children would suffer because of his imprisonment, and pointed out that he would be very isolated in Hong Kong because his wife and family cannot afford to visit him.
While I acknowledge the truth of those matters and sympathise, they do not count as mitigatory factors which would reduce the length of a sentence in respect of a charge as serious as this.
The only mitigation in this case is the plea of guilty, for which the defendant is entitled to the full one‑third discount.
This is a serious offence, and in terms of quantity, the quantity attracts a sentence of 18 years and upwards, according to The Attorney-General v Ching Kwok Hung (1991) 2 HKLR 125).
There is also an international element to this case which requires the court to enhance the sentence by at least 2 years. This is according to HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLR 432.
In this case, I adopt a starting point of 23 years. I enhance that by 2 years to 25 years. I give the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty, which is the only cogent mitigation before me, and I sentence the defendant to 16 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.