CRIMINAL CASE NO. 367 OF 2011
COURT: Samuel Chukwu, I do not intend to read a sermon to you. There is no purpose. No good purpose will be served by my doing so.
The harmful effects of dangerous drugs are well known in Hong Kong and throughout the world, as indeed are the evils of the international drug-trafficking trade.
You deliberately took a gamble in bringing this large quantity of dangerous drugs into Hong Kong, and unfortunately for you, your gamble failed; you were discovered.
There is nothing in your particular circumstances, your personal circumstances, or in the circumstances of commission of this offence that I find to be of any mitigating value whatsoever. Your mitigation lies in the fact that you have been realistic and you have pleaded guilty to this offence. A plea of guilty is always recognised by the courts as indicating, to some extent, a degree of remorse, and you will receive appropriate credit for that. I also take into account the fact that you are of clear record in Hong Kong.
You will have been told by Mr Allman-Brown, who has said everything that can be said on your behalf very eloquently, that there are well-established guidelines in Hong Kong as to how I, and all judges, should sentence persons who engage in drug trafficking. He will have told you that we are expected to keep to those guidelines unless there are good reasons for us not to do so. There are no good reasons in your case. I must follow those guidelines.
I have to tell you that had you taken this matter to trial - that means had you maintained a plea of not guilty, had evidence been led against you, and had a jury found you guilty of the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs - you, following those well-established guidelines, would have been looking at a prison sentence of at least 21 years and 6 months. That would take into account the international aspect of this case, in particular that 6 months that I have just spoken of.
There has been discussion before me this morning, and it was proper discussion, concerning the chemical content of the drugs that you brought into Hong Kong.
Suffice it to say it is clear to me that the narcotic effect of those drugs was the same, regardless of what the chemical content of part of the consignment was. It would have had the same effect on the person who consumed it. I therefore can take no account of the fact that some of the quantity of dangerous drugs had a different chemical content, when analysed, from the other.
As I said, you will receive full recognition for your clear record and for your plea of guilty, and therefore the sentence of 21 years and 6 months that you would have received after trial is reduced by one-third to a sentence of 14 years and 4 months.