CRIMINAL CASE NO. 150 OF 2012
COURT: On 11 May of this year, the defendant pleaded guilty at the Eastern Magistracy to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. She was committed to this court for sentence pursuant to section 81B of the Magistrates Ordinance, Chapter 227. Today she has confirmed her plea of guilty and accepted again a Summary of Facts which the prosecution submits in support of the charge.
The particulars of the charge to which the defendant has pleaded guilty are to the effect that she trafficked in 740 grammes of a mixture containing 380 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 120 grammes of 6-monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride, a total of 500 grammes of the two salts of esters of morphine.
The offence was committed on 22 October 2011 at the Hong Kong International Airport. On that day, the defendant, who holds a Malaysian passport, arrived in Hong Kong on a flight from Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. She was searched by Customs officers and, beneath her undergarments, she had concealed a slab of what was suspected to be dangerous drugs. She was arrested and later conveyed to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital where she subsequently discharged some 55 pellets.
The slab of suspected dangerous drugs and the 55 pellets were examined by the Government Chemist who certified there to be, in total, as I have indicated, 740 grammes of a mixture which contained 500 grammes of salts of esters of morphine in the form of heroin hydrochloride and 6‑monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride. The drugs had a retail value in Hong Kong of almost $500,000.
The defendant, when interviewed, had told the interviewing officers that she had been paid to deliver the drugs to Guangzhou and that she was on her way to do that.
Today, the defendant is ably represented before me by Mr Collins. He has told me something of the background of the defendant. As is indicated in an antecedents statement submitted, she is 41 years of age and the mother of four children whose ages range from 9 to 21. Her personal circumstances, albeit, as Mr Collins properly accepts, would normally not amount to significant mitigation by reason of the nature of the offence she has committed, are not unfamiliar. She was motivated by the need for money and was inveigled into becoming a drug courier by others.
It is regrettable that the consequences of her conduct are that her children will no longer have her presence and support but, as Mr Collins quite rightly accepts, one must not lose sight of the fact that the consequences of trafficking in dangerous drugs have a significant and deep impact on a large number of people in the community who ultimately consume those dangerous drugs.
The defendant has herself written a lengthy letter to the court in mitigation and as an expression of her genuine and sincere remorse and I accept what she says. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal has made it clear on a number of occasions that where offences of drug trafficking are concerned and, in particular, where there are substantial amounts of drugs, as there were here, the personal circumstances and the ultimate remorse of the defendant involved does not amount to significant mitigation.
Mr Collins has referred me to The Queen v Lau Tak Ming & Ors [1992] HKLR at page 370, wherein the Court of Appeal has indicated guidelines for judges sentencing for trafficking in dangerous drugs. Applying those guidelines to the quantity of drugs that we have here, it would normally indicate that a starting point for sentence after trial of 17 years and 6 months was warranted.
Nevertheless, the international element which is involved in this defendant’s drug trafficking justifies, in my opinion, an enhancement of that starting point to reflect the fact that the drugs had been brought into Hong Kong and were intended for transhipment to the mainland. It has long been held to be a significant aggravating factor.
In the circumstances, taking all matters into account, including the personal circumstances of the defendant, I believe that it is appropriate to enhance the starting point by a term of 6 months to make a total, after trial, of a sentence of 18 years.
The defendant is, of course, entitled to a full one-third remission from that starting point for her plea of guilty. There is nothing in the personal circumstances of the defendant or in the circumstances of the commission of the offence which, in my opinion, would justify a further discount in addition to that one-third.
That being the case, the appropriate sentence, in my opinion, is one of 12 years’ imprisonment and I make an order to that effect.