CRIMINAL CASE NO. 284 OF 2010
COURT: Omary Mussa Abdallah, you have pleaded guilty before a Magistrate to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and you have been committed to this court for sentence.
The facts which you admitted before the Magistrate show that you swallowed pellets containing dangerous drugs in Dubai upon the promise of payment of US$5,000 and you came to Hong Kong with those pellets concealed in your body. You were told that you would be met by somebody who would presumably have received the pellets once they had been excreted. However, after your arrival at the airport, customs officers intercepted you and, in due course, the dangerous drugs were recovered from your body.
They comprised a mixture of about 1,653 grammes containing about 461 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and about 400 grammes of a derivative form of heroin. Both these forms of heroin fall into the same category for the purposes for sentencing a drug trafficker such as you.
The total quantity of dangerous drugs which you were trafficking at the time was very slightly over 861 grammes of heroin or heroin derivative. That is the narcotic element of what you were carrying with you when you came into Hong Kong. And you have been told that sentencing in Hong Kong for trafficking in dangerous drugs is based primarily on the quantity of the dangerous drugs, that is, the narcotic element, not the mixture, so that figure of 861 grammes is what applies in your case.
The Court of Appeal in Hong Kong has laid down guidelines so that there is a uniformity of sentencing for drug traffickers and sentencing courts, such as this, must apply those guidelines. The guidelines reflect the starting point for sentence and are to be adjusted for any aggravation or any mitigation.
In your case there is some aggravation, that is to say, something that makes your offence more grave, and that is the fact of bringing the drugs into Hong Kong. It has for many years been regarded as an aggravating factor.
So far as the quantity of 861 grammes is concerned, that takes you into the bracket of 600 to 1200 grammes for which the Court of Appeal has prescribed a starting point for sentence of 20 to 23 years.
In my judgment the proper starting point in your case, aside from the aggravation and the mitigation that is, will be 22 years’ imprisonment. That is the sentence that would be imposed upon you if you were convicted after trial by a jury having pleaded not guilty. And I am satisfied that I must, in accordance with the guidelines, adjust that sentence from 22 years to 23 years to reflect the importation of the drugs into Hong Kong.
Turning to the mitigation that applies in your case. You are 27 years of age, a Tanzanian national. Of course you have no record for convictions in Hong Kong though, obviously, that can make little difference in the circumstances of your case.
What does make a difference is your plea of guilty at an early stage in these proceedings. You have submitted a letter today expressing your remorse and you have attached to it copies of the photographs of your family in Tanzania. I do recognise your remorse. I accept it is genuine.
That plea of guilty that you entered must lead to a discount in the sentence of one third. It is quite a substantial discount and it leads to a discount which means that the sentence I must impose upon you is one of 15 years’ and 4 months’ imprisonment.
I recognise that this is a heavy sentence but the crime you have committed is grave and it is vital that the message gets back to people in your country, and other countries, that those who try to import drugs into Hong Kong will be met with severe sentences.
And, therefore, to repeat I tell you that the sentence that I impose upon you one of 15 years’ and 4 months’ imprisonment.
Please refer to CACC494/2012 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.