HKSAR v. ALLI MOHAMED RAMADHANI

HCCC 294/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 294 OF 2015

_______________

_______________

_______________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_______________

1.  On 22 February 2015, the defendant was refused entry to Hong Kong. However, it was suspected that he had drugs concealed inside his body and he was medically examined for that purpose. It was confirmed that he had drugs concealed in his body cavity and he was charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs.

2.  At the earliest opportunity on 17 July 2015, the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. 

3.  The facts the defendant agreed upon when he pleaded guilty were as follows.  On 22 February 2015, the defendant, a 40 year old Tanzanian male, was refused entry to Hong Kong having arrived on a flight from Tanzania via Ethiopia.  It was suspected that he had dangerous drugs concealed inside his body and he was escorted to a hospital for a medical examination.  It revealed that there were foreign objects concealed inside his body and he was arrested and cautioned.  He was searched and found in his possession was US$1,300.  Over the next few days whilst in custody at the hospital he egested a total of 60 packets of dangerous drugs which were later confirmed to contain 757 grammes of a mixture containing 440 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 79 grammes of 6‑monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride (morphine).  Morphine can be a hydrolysed product of heroin. 

4.  The retail value of the drugs seized was estimated to be around HK$580,000.

5.  Under caution the defendant stated that a Tanzanian known as Joseph gave him 60 packets of things to swallow in Tanzania and that he was to deliver the packets to Guangzhou China via Hong Kong.  He was offered a US$7,000 reward upon successful delivery.  He admits that at the time of the offence he knew he was unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs. 

6.  Information about the background of the defendant is limited.  It is known that he was born in Tanzania and he is 41 years of age.  He states that he has no criminal record in his home country but that has not been verified.  In any event, I will treat him as a person with a clear record.  At the time of his arrest, he claimed that he was married with three children.  His mother and father were both farmers and I am informed today that his father has passed away.  He has a total of four siblings, one of whom is now deceased.  His younger brother is a businessman aged 40 and his younger sister is a nurse who is aged 30.  His youngest brother is a fisherman who is aged 25.  He claimed he was in the business of selling used electronic appliances and precious stones and that he is the sole breadwinner of the family. He claims that he lives with his wife and three children and mother.  His children are all students aged 20, 18 and 4 years respectively.  He claims he is not a drug abuser and his reason for getting involved in transporting the drugs to China was because he was in financial difficulties and needed the money. 

7.  As noted part of the drugs were 6-monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride, which is well recognised as having similar potency to heroin hydrochloride in its narcotic properties. 

8.  For the purposes of sentencing the total quantity of narcotic content of the mixture was 519 grammes. 

9.  The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and for that he should be given the customary one-third discount to his sentence.  The defendant clearly had the backing of a criminal syndicate that has sought to bring drugs into Hong Kong.  The guideline case of R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 provides for a sentence of a term of imprisonment of 17½ years after trial for trafficking in 519 grammes of heroin.  On the authority of HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas [2009] 2 HKLRD 437, where there is an international element, as evidenced in this case by the importation of drugs into Hong Kong, China, and the circumstances by which it was done, a sentence is subject to enhancement to reflect this aggravating factor.  The defendant’s sentence will therefore be increased by 1 year.  

10.  Accordingly, I adopt a starting point of 18½ years’ imprisonment which I reduce by one-third for the defendant’s guilty plea.  There being no other mitigating factors warranting a reduction in sentence, I sentence the defendant to 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.