The defendant arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport from Kuala Lumpur. She was stopped by a Customs Officer. A search of a suitcase in her possession revealed that 1.79 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 0.80 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride were concealed inside. The defendant is a mainland citizen. She went to Kuala Lumpur for a tour of a total of four days.
In sentencing I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on her behalf.
I was told that the defendant is now 37 years of age. She has been living in Guangzhou. She is married with two young children. She received high school education and some further training in accounting. She had been in proper and gainful employment for years. Then she started her own business; three small shops selling cosmetic products have been running under her name.
I was also told that the defendant is a first time offender. She did not have a record in Hong Kong or anywhere else. In mitigation, learned counsel for the defence, Mr Davies, stressed the minor role of the defendant in this operation and her previous good character.
The dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was heroin. The total narcotic content was 0.8 kilogrammes. The Court of Appeal suggested in the case R v Lau Tak Ming [1992] HKLR 370, that a sentence over 20 years’ imprisonment should be considered for trafficking in heroin if the narcotic content exceeds 600 grammes.
In HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437, the Court of Appeal set out further guidelines for sentence in respect of this drug in larger quantities. It was suggested that if the narcotic content is between 600 to 1,200 grammes, the sentence should be 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment.
In all the circumstances, I do not find there are good grounds to depart from the tariff.
I bear in mind the case, HKSAR v Leung Wai Man CACC 24/2007 in which the Court of Appeal stressed that a sentencing court should avoid using arithmetic progression in sentencing. Instead, a court should exercise its discretion according to the circumstances of the case.
I also note that the Court of Appeal said in the case of Lau Tak Ming, that within the suggested bands, factors which the sentencing judge may properly take into account include the degree of involvement of the offender, his previous history of narcotic offences and matters of mitigation which may be advanced on his behalf.
In my judgment, the defendant played the role of a courier and there is no basis to find that she was a mastermind of the offence or a person occupying a higher position in the commission of this offence. I also bear in mind that this is her first time being convicted of any offence.
I have to take into account the international element in this case and, for this reason, it is my judgment that the starting point should be enhanced by 9 months.
In all the circumstances, I consider an ultimate starting point of 21 years is appropriate and sufficient. I do not consider there exist any factors which justify a discount in this case.
Defendant, please stand up.
For the above said reasons, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 21 years.