COURT: The defendant, Bognom Dramani, pleads guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134.
The Particulars of Offence are that the defendant, on the 1st day of November 2012, at Hong Kong International Airport, Chek Lap Kok, New Territories, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 2.04 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 1.06 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride.
Facts Admitted
The defendant, a Benin national, arrived at Hong Kong International Airport on 1 November 2012 and was found by the Customs officers to have two packages concealed in the sides of his suitcase which he carried. The packages were revealed on X-ray examination of the suitcase. The contents of the packages were later confirmed to be a mixture of 2.04 kilogrammes containing 1.06 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride.
The estimated value of the dangerous drugs at the time of seizure was HK$1,829,880.
On being arrested and cautioned, the defendant said that someone by the name of ‘Dan’ had given him the suitcase and had asked him to take it to China.
In the video-recorded interview conducted subsequently, the defendant stated, inter alia, that he was on his way to China on business and had been asked by a friend, Dan, to take a suitcase to the friend’s brother in China. His friend gave him the suitcase which was empty and told him to put his baggage into the suitcase and he did so.
Mitigation
The defendant is aged 42 and is a Benin national. He received primary education and is married with a son now aged 6. He was in the clothing business, dealing mostly in lady garments. He went to China to buy clothing to sell them in Benin. Because of his incarceration in Hong Kong, the wife and son of the defendant are now in financial hardship.
The defendant committed the offence because he helped a fellow trader Dan to take the suitcase to China. Although he knew that there were dangerous drugs inside the suitcase, he did not know the quantity and the serious consequences of taking the dangerous drugs into Hong Kong. He received no reward for the job and was only given credit in business transactions with Dan. Dan promised to look after his wife and son in Benin but the defendant doubts it very much.
The defendant is now remorseful and he apologises to the Hong Kong people and Hong Kong authorities for having committed such an offence which he now knows to be serious.
Counsel for the defendant submits to the court a letter of mitigation written by the defendant. In the letter, the defendant expresses remorsefulness and apologises to the Hong Kong people and authorities for committing the offence. He states that he committed the offence without a second thought but he is willing to accept full responsibility for his behaviour. He has a wife and a 6-year-old son in Benin and he has all along been a law-abiding citizen in his own country. He asks for leniency of the court.
Counsel for the defendant says that the defendant will have to be separated from his 6-year-old son and his family for a long time and will not be able to see his son grow into adulthood. He will have to serve a long sentence in a foreign country. Counsel for the defendant emphasises that the defendant was not the mastermind of the illegal enterprise and had a clear record. He had tried to help Customs & Excise by giving information about Dan. He has pleaded guilty to the offence. Counsel for the defendant asks for leniency for the defendant.
Sentence
The Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing guidelines for the offence of trafficking in heroin hydrochloride in the case of R v Lau Tak Ming & Others [1990] 2 HKLR 370. For a quantity of 600 to 1,200 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, the starting point is 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment.
The amount of heroin hydrochloride involved in the present case is 1,060 grammes. The starting point, according to the guidelines, should be one of 22 years 3 months’ imprisonment.
The court has much sympathy for the defendant that he has to be separated from his young son and wife for a long time and will not be able to see his son grow into adulthood, but being an adult, he should have foreseen such consequences before he embarked on his illegal enterprise.
The court has considered all the circumstances of the present case, including the mitigation of the defendant ably put forward by counsel for the defendant, and is of the view that there is no reason why the sentencing guidelines should not be followed, thus adopting 22 years 3 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.
As rightly and fairly pointed out by counsel for the defendant, there is a factor in the present case which necessitates the starting point to be enhanced, namely, the defendant taking the dangerous drugs from a country abroad into Hong Kong. There are ample authorities saying that trafficking in dangerous drugs involving an international element is an aggravating factor.
Having considered cases such as HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 and HKSAR v Hong Chang Chi, CACC 187/2001, the court has decided to enhance the starting point to 24 years’ imprisonment, which the court now adopts.
The only mitigation the defendant has is his plea of guilty. Giving him credit for it, the court sentences him to 16 years’ imprisonment.