The defendant is a national of Tanzania. He is now 45 years of age, but at the time of the offence he was 44 years of age and claims to be married with four children, three sons aged 19, 17 and 11, and a daughter aged 14 years.
He arrived at Hong Kong International Airport from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, via Doha, Qatar, in the afternoon of 3 August 2013. He was refused permission to land by an Immigration Department officer and referred to Customs & Excise Department officers for clearance. He and his belongings were searched and no contraband was found.
On suspicion that the defendant was concealing drugs in his body, he was escorted to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for a medical examination. Upon an x-ray examination it was found that he had foreign objects in his body, which he later discharged; the objects consisted of 78 pellets of plastic wrapping of heroin.
When he was arrested and cautioned, he exercised his right not to say anything.
There is little known about his background and the circumstances that led him to commit this offence, except for what has been submitted today in mitigation.
The defendant is from Tanzania where he claimed he received a level 4 secondary education and later worked as a businessman earning approximately US$100 per month selling mobile phones and accessories. It is submitted on his behalf that he is the sole breadwinner of the family. His wife is a housewife and his two eldest sons are unemployed. They live, it is stated, in a rented property which the family has had to vacate since his arrest.
It is submitted that he committed this crime by the lure of easy money and out of greed. He was promised a reward of US$7,000 once he delivered the drugs in Hong Kong. The air flight to Hong Kong was paid for by the drug trafficker.
It is also submitted that he is remorseful for what he has done and that is evident by his plea of guilty and, for the position that he has put his family in, as a result of this crime. I should say that not only should he have acted out of more concern for his own family, but also for the persons and families he would have harmed and affected in Hong Kong by the drugs he was prepared to bring in.
The law is severe against those persons involved in the drug trade.
The defendant, a Tanzanian national, brought a large quantity of pellets of heroin concealed in his body cavity. There were 78 pellets in total with each consisting of a little under 8 grammes of heroin. It was a deliberate and calculating method of concealment and transportation of the drugs. It made it harder for the drugs to be detected by those in authority. It was clearly all part of an elaborate scheme that involved preparation and planning, given the quantity of drugs and the manner by which they were packed and brought into Hong Kong. It had an international element.
The other persons obviously involved in this serious crime are not before me and that is something that the defendant may want to think about.
The law requires that the defendant go to prison for a long time. The guideline case of Lau Tak Ming provides for a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment after trial for trafficking in 600 grammes of heroin. On the authority of Abdallah Anwar Abbas and Da Silva the sentence will be enhanced by one year for the aggravating factor of the international element by the importation of drugs into Hong Kong.
The defendant has pleaded guilty and for that he gets a third off the starting point of 21 years’ imprisonment. There is no other mitigation that warrants further discount to the sentence to be imposed and accordingly the defendant is sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment.
Mr Mabuga, you understand that you have now been sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment?
ACCUSED: Yes.