HKSAR v. Musyoki, Rose Mutinda
|
HCCC180/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO. 180 OF 2009 -----------------
-----------------
---------------------------------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording ---------------------------------------------------------- COURT: Rose Mutinda Musyoki, you have pleaded guilty to trafficking in 1,114.35 grammes of a mixture containing 826.36 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. Those drugs were contained in a suitcase you brought into Hong Kong, by air, from India via Kuala Lumpur, on 5 January this year. The drugs were wrapped in eight boxes and in another small package so to give the appearance that they were bars of soap. When a Customs Officer asked you what those items were, your initial reply was that they were bars of soap that you had bought in India. The following day, when you were interviewed, you suggested that you had not seen the soapboxes or soap packet before and that the lock on your suitcase had been tampered with. Today, by your plea, you have admitted that you knew that you were bringing drugs into Hong Kong. Drug-trafficking is an evil business and this was a very substantial quantity of heroin. The estimated street value of the drugs at the time in Hong Kong was approximately $840,000. You would have known that very serious consequences would follow if you were caught with those drugs. You are perhaps fortunate that they were not detected in Kuala Lumpur. At the time you committed this offence, the sentencing guidelines provided to the courts by the Court of Appeal provided that those who trafficked in between 400 and 600 grammes of narcotic should expect sentences of between 15 to 20 years, after trial. Quantities larger than that warranted starting points of 20 years and more depending on the circumstances. The tariff bands provided by the Court of Appeal provided for situations where there were no aggravating circumstances. In your case, the fact that you brought these drugs into Hong Kong is an aggravating circumstance. In deciding upon the appropriate starting point, I can take into account the nature of your role in this offence. I have listened to all that Mr Whitehouse has said on your behalf. I am prepared to accept for the purpose of sentence that you were normally a legitimate businesswoman who, in the course of your business, would buy goods from overseas. I am prepared to accept that you had found yourself with the burden of looking after a very large number of dependants, your siblings, your own children, and the children of one of your sisters who had been murdered. Clearly, you were in a vulnerable position by reason of that burden. I am prepared to accept that that vulnerability was exploited by others more deeply involved in the drug business to induce you to carry these drugs into Hong Kong. It is apparent from the table that has been provided to me by Mr Chapman, for the prosecution, that other women from Kenya have been used in a similar way. I have borne in mind the sentences passed in two of those cases, Mary Adhiambo Opollo and Hamid Annait Njoki Kaur, albeit that those cases involved drugs with a somewhat smaller narcotic content. In all the circumstances of this case, I am prepared, and do, adopt a starting point of 21 years’ imprisonment. You have pleaded guilty and are entitled to the usual discount of one-third. I accordingly sentence you to 14 years' imprisonment. |