CRIMINAL CASE NO. 363 OF 2011
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty at committal on 30 September 2011 to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The drug was heroin, namely 1.39 kilograms of a mixture containing 0.69 kilograms of heroin hydrochloride and 0.13 kilograms of monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride.
He confirmed that plea of guilty before me today, and also confirmed as correct the facts to which he had pleaded guilty at committal.
The defendant, who was the holder of a Mozambique passport, arrived at Hong Kong Airport from Bangkok, intending to transit by ferry to Shekou. He was selected for Customs clearance. Nothing was found in his baggage or on his person, but Customs and Excise officers suspected he might be carrying drugs internally.
The defendant was taken to Queen Elizabeth Hospital, where at first he refused an x-ray, but later consented to having one. The x-ray confirmed the presence of foreign objects in his body, and the defendant was arrested and cautioned. Subsequently the defendant discharged 96 packets of suspected dangerous drugs.
Analysis by the Government Chemist confirmed the nature and quantity of the drugs as set out in the particulars of the charge. Their estimated retail value at the time of seizure was HK$907,670.
In an interview the defendant stated that a friend of his in Bangkok had asked him if he would bring some foreign objects to China to make some money, and he was told that the foreign objects were cocaine. He had been promised US$5,000, of which US4,000 had been given to him and US1,500 was to be sent to him through Western Union.
On his arrival at a hotel in China he was to ring his friend, who would send someone to collect the objects.
The accused admits and accepts that he was trafficking in the dangerous drugs.
The antecedents statement shows that the defendant was aged 38 years, and lived in Nigeria with his wife and four children. He had been educated to Form 3 level. At the time of his arrest he claimed that he was a businessman. He has a clear record in Hong Kong.
I have had sight of his Immigration records, which show that from 24 April 2010 up until the time of his arrest, he had been on a number of occasions to and through Hong Kong.
In mitigation, I was told that he had been an abandoned child who had been brought up by adoptive parents who lived in Nigeria. In 2004 he married a Mozambican woman, and he has one son of 9 and three daughters aged 7, 5 and 4 years old. In an effort to support his family, he set up a roadside booth selling spare parts, and eventually went into partnership with an older businessman and was able to travel to other places, including China and Hong Kong, to buy spare parts for the business. He was travelling on a Mozambique passport because the Nigerian passport had a lot of restrictions on travel.
He was on a buying trip to Thailand when he learned that his roadside stall in Nigeria had burned down and he had lost all the spare parts. He had no business. He had creditors who wanted money for the parts that he had purchased, and he was stranded in Thailand. It was under these circumstances that he eventually committed this offence in an effort to go back to his family and his business in Nigeria.
Prior to this hearing there was an application for an adjournment of the hearing because an issue had been raised in another court about the potency of monoacetylmorphine, which is one of the components of the drug in this case.
I refused an adjournment to have the matter considered further, and having considered the case today, I am of the view that it would make no difference to this particular case in terms of sentence if this case was to be adjourned for further consideration.
The narcotic quantity of the drug was 820 grammes in total, which, under the revised sentencing guidelines in Abdallah, comes within the sentencing range of 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment for a quantity between 600 grammes and 1,200 grammes.
Here there is an aggravating factor of an importation element, but given the quantity of the drug, I am of the view that I am not obliged to add an additional 2 years to enhance the sentence.
The sole mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s plea of guilty. That entitles him to a full discount of one‑third.
I take a starting point of 20 years and increase it to 21 years to take account of the importation element. After giving discount, I sentence the defendant to 14 years’ imprisonment.
I should add that I have taken into account three letters that were put before me, one from the parish priest of the defendant, who is a practising Catholic, one from his wife in which she sets out the parlous conditions in which she finds herself with her four children, and also a letter from the defendant himself, in which he expresses his remorse in respect of this case.
While I have sympathy for the defendant in respect of the matters raised, I must take into account that this is a very serious offence committed by somebody who comes from outside Hong Kong to commit it.
I confirm the sentence of 14 years.