COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 1.2 kilograms of a mixture containing 0.65 kilograms of heroin hydrochloride and has been committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.
The facts are all too common now in that the defendant is a Ugandan male who arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport on a flight from Uganda via Nairobi, Kenya. He was intercepted and taken to Queen Elizabeth Hospital and subsequently discharged 95 pellets of drugs on seven occasions. The drugs subsequently were examined and they were found to be the weight as pointed out in the particulars of the charge.
The defendant, when interviewed under caution, tells a very similar story as the other defendants on similar charges have lately come before the court told, in that he was approached by an unknown male in Uganda, offered a sum of money and then told to swallow the pellets, come to Hong Kong, and a promise of reward of US$3,000 were to be paid to him upon a successful delivery of the drugs in Hong Kong. He was also given a mobile phone SIM card for his use in Hong Kong and presumably for the contact in Hong Kong to contact him when he arrived in Hong Kong.
The street value of the drugs in Hong Kong is about $908,400.
In mitigation, Mr Loftus pointed out that the defendant has been a law-abiding citizen until the present offence. The defendant has a clear record, both in Hong Kong and in Uganda, and that he has two wives and nine children in Uganda.
It is clear from the testimonials which have been submitted that the defendant has led a law-abiding life in that he had always been gainfully employed in a security company in Iraq prior to the US withdrawal from Iraq and he had also been employed in the United Nations food program in Uganda, so he has not been an idle person, and whilst in custody he had also studied a bible course and also participated in the bible studies given by the Baptist Mission. So all in all it is clear that the defendant is a hardworking person and up to now has had led a life with contributions to society, but unfortunately the lure of easy money was his downfall.
The courts in Hong Kong have said time and time again that we cannot be lenient with people who bring drugs into Hong Kong because we have seen how our young children in Hong Kong have succumbed time and time again to drugs and the tragedy it brings to our citizens in Hong Kong.
The Court of Appeal has very recently given guidelines to trafficking in heroin of over 600 grammes in the case of Abdallah [2009] 2 HKC 197, where they laid down guidelines that for trafficking in between 600 to 1,200 grammes of heroin a sentence of between 20 to 23 years is appropriate. In this case the amount is 650 grammes, so it would merit a sentencing starting point of between 20 to 20½ years.
The problem in this case also is that there is a strong aggravating factor in that the defendant was importing the drugs into Hong Kong and I have been urged by Mr Loftus that I should only increase it by no more than a year for this aggravating factor.
I do recognise that the sentences are serious for trafficking and that I do accept that the defendant is most probably a mule used by the drug lords to bring the drugs into Hong Kong. However, it is impossible for the authorities to arrest the more senior people in these drug cartels without the cooperation of what we call drug mules or people further down the line in these trafficking cases. These drug lords hide behind a veil of secrecy and so the people who are caught are actually people like the defendant who risk their lives for monetary gain.
Having said all this the background of the defendant pales into insignificance when a deterrent sentence is merited in offences of this nature.
However, having recognised the mitigation in this case and also the circumstances and the fact of the defendant’s early plea, I do adopt the most lenient starting point, which is 20 years’ imprisonment and then I will add one year for the aggravating factor of the importation of the drugs, so that brings us to a starting point of 21 years’ imprisonment, and because the defendant had shown his remorse by his early plea, I will give him the benefit of the full one-third discount and so reduce the sentence to one of 14 years’ imprisonment.
The defendant will go to prison for 14 years.
I must add that the only way that the defendant in this situation, apart from not wasting his time in prison by bettering himself and learning a skill, is also to spread the word about the serious sentences that Hong Kong metes out to his fellow citizens in Uganda so that to help to deter people who are tempted by the lure of easy money to bring the drugs into Hong Kong. So hopefully the message will one day get through to people in the economically deprived countries in Africa, Asia and all around the world so that these drug cartels will find it harder and harder to have mules deliver their drugs. So that is what the defendant can do constructively for his fellow citizens in Uganda.
The defendant is sent to prison for 14 years.