HKSAR v. Godfrey Gadiel Koshuma

Appeal against sentence by the Defendant to Court of Appeal dismissed. Please refer to CACC342/2009 dated 18 June 2010
Case No.HCCC 242/2009
Court
High Court CFI
Date28 Sep 2009
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC242/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 242 OF 2009

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

  HKSAR  
  v.  
  Godfrey Gadiel Koshuma  

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

Before:

The Honourable Madam Justice Beeson

Date:

28 September 2009 at 10.12 am

Present:

Ms Christal Chan, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Nicholas Adams, instructed by Jal N Karbhari & Co., for the Accused

Offence:

Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)

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

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

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

COURT: This defendant pleaded guilty on 31 July 2009 to one charge of trafficking a dangerous drug, the drug being 1.02 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 0.71 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride.

The facts admitted by the defendant show that he is a Tanzanian national who arrived in Hong Kong on a Cathay flight from Kuala Lampur. He was selected for Customs clearance and searched. No contraband was found, but the Customs officers suspected body concealment and arranged an X-ray. The X-ray showed that the defendant’s stomach was filled with foreign objects. He was arrested for trafficking.

Between 13 February 2009 and 17 February 2009 the defendant discharged 92 pellets of suspected heroin. The analysis by the Government Chemist revealed the quantity set out in the particulars of charge.

In a cautioned interview the defendant said he met two men in Guangzhou who instructed him to bring the drugs from Malaysia to his home in Tanzania via Hong Kong. In Malaysia he had swallowed the drug with food. He knew he was carrying dangerous drugs but did not know what kind of dangerous drugs they were. He was to be paid US$4,500 as a reward. The estimated street value of the dangerous drugs was $512,040.

The accused does not have a criminal record in Hong Kong. A document has been placed before me which purports to be from the United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Home Affairs, which states that he has no fingerprints in their register of criminal records.

Counsel has put before the court, as an explanation for the accused’s involvement in this offence, his father’s death certificate. His father required an operation, and the accused took this method of obtaining funds to pay for the operation. His father died on 11 March 2009. Counsel has correctly said that the only mitigation in this case is the plea of guilty, which I accept was an early plea, and I accept that, to the extent that he could, he did co-operate with the authorities. I am advised by the prosecution that this was his first visit to Hong Kong.

Under the Lau Tak Ming guidelines the sentence for this proportion of narcotic is over 20 years. This is a serious offence, and made more serious because of the abuse of Hong Kong as a legitimate travel and business destination by persons who pretend that they are bona fide tourists or businessmen so as to deal in drugs destined for other places. This potentially puts large quantities of dangerous drugs within the grasp of Hong Kong citizens and places on the Hong Kong government the unwanted burden of having to provide prison and other facilities for foreign nationals.

In a case such as this where the dangerous drugs were carried internally, it also places an unnecessary strain on hospital facilities, requiring hospital staff to retrieve the drugs in a manner that ensures the safety of the carrier.

In this case I adopt a starting point for sentence of 21 years. I add one year for the international element. I give a full discount for the plea of one-third, and I arrive at a sentence of 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Appeal against sentence by the Defendant to Court of Appeal dismissed. Please refer to CACC342/2009 dated 18 June 2010
Related Cases
Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first
Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case