HKSAR v. Udeh Iroh Emeka

HCCC 175/2019

[2019] HKCFI 2608

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 175 OF 2019

-----------------

------------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT:

The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.

In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drug concerned, background of the defendant, and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case may be summarized as follows:

The defendant was intercepted by Customs officers when he arrived Hong Kong by air. Medical examination revealed foreign objects in his body. In a hospital, he discharged 56 packets containing a total of 996 grammes of a solid containing 618 grammes of cocaine. Under caution, he said the substance was “Soogi”.

In a subsequent interview, he said he swallowed the substance in Cameroon so that he would take it to Hong Kong. He was promised a reward of US$4,000. He said “Soogi” is a kind of food and he had eaten it before.

I was told that the defendant is a Nigerian now aged 44. He is married and has two daughters and a son aged 7, 4 and 1 respectively. His father is 75 years old, working as a railway staff. His mother is 65 years old. Both parents suffer ill health. The defendant is a Christian. He has a clear record both in Hong Kong and back in Nigeria.

In mitigation, learned counsel for the defence, Mr Mughal, stressed that the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and said the defendant is now remorseful and has been cooperative with the authorities. He told the court that the defendant was a businessman trading in garment. For his business, he had been to Hong Kong before. On this occasion, when he was in Cameroon looking for business opportunities, a friend asked him to take drug to Hong Kong for a reward of US$4,000 if the operation is successful. He succumbed to the temptation and committed the offence. As he was the sole breadwinner of the family, his family suffers as a result of the wrongdoing of the defendant.

The defence submitted a letter from the defendant, his wife and a preacher of a local church. In the defendant’s letter, he expressed remorse and asked for mercy so that he could return home as early as possible to look after his family again. In the wife’s letter, she said the defendant is a good man and described the hardship of the family when the defendant is not there to support them. The preacher pleaded leniency on the defendant’s behalf. Photographs of the family were also produced.

The Court of Appeal held in AG v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 2 HKCLR 69 that in a case of trafficking in cocaine, the guideline in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 is applicable since the narcotic content of the two drugs is very closely alike in the degree of harm. In Lau Tak Ming, a sentence of more than 20 years’ imprisonment was suggested for a case of trafficking in heroin if the narcotic content is over 600 grammes. In the subsequent case of HKSAR v Abdallah, CACC 304/2008, the Court of Appeal held that a sentence of 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment should be considered if the narcotic content of the heroin trafficked in was 600 to 1,200 grammes.

In the present case, I see no reason to justify departure from the sentencing tariff. There was international element in this case, for which, having regards to HKSAR v Abdallah, I will enhance the starting point by about 14 months for this reason.

Having considered the whole circumstances, in my judgment, only an ultimate starting point of 21 years and 3 months is sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the present case. The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for his guilty plea before a magistrate, his previous clear record and the remorse he has expressed. Having considered the whole circumstances, including what learned defence counsel said on the defendant’s behalf, in my judgment, one-third is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to in this case.

The defendant, please stand up. For the reasons I have mentioned, I sentence you to an immediate imprisonment term of 14 years and 2 months.