COURT: Defendant, you pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section (4)(1) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
You have admitted that on 27 April 2013 at the Hong Kong International Airport, you unlawfully trafficked in 0.69 kilograms of a mixture containing 0.40 kilograms of heroin hydrochloride.
On that day, you had arrived at the Hong Kong Airport from Kuala Lumpur, your birth place and your residence. You had gone through the green channel of the Arrival Hall, however, you were intercepted by Customs and Excise officers for a search.
Upon searching you, two packets of drugs were found concealed within the underlying of your brassier, and another packet of drugs was found concealed between two layers of sanitary napkins you were wearing in your underpants.
The value of the drugs in April 2013 was estimated to be about $556,140.
At the time you were arrested and cautioned at the airport, you informed the officers that you believed the drugs were dried herbal leaves. However, clearly, now upon your plea of guilty you accept and admit that you knew at all material times that the contents were drugs.
Your counsel, Ms D Crebbin has accepted that and has mitigated on that basis.
You are 42 years of age now. At the time of commission of the offence you were 41. You are Malaysian, having been born and raised in Kuala Lumpur and receiving a secondary level education there. You are single, and ran a clothing business in Kuala Lumpur.
Ms Crebbin, in her usual eloquence, has said all that she can say for you in mitigation.
You are a person of clear record. You had committed this offence as you were in need of some financial assistance. I am informed that you were the sole caretaker of your elderly mother who is 84, and who is also partly paralysed. Although you have other siblings, you were the principal carer.
You had become involved in this offence, as mentioned, because you needed further financial assistance to assist the other members of your family.
You foolishly believed that this was not such a serious matter, and you agreed to import or traffic the drugs into Hong Kong then on to China for a reward if the handover had been successful.
Of course, the handover was not successful, as you were intercepted, as a result of which you have now been charged and convicted and you have realised now that your foolish act of being a courier has done more harm than good to your family.
I have taken into account your moving letter you have written to the court. I note the sorrow you feel that you will not be able to look after your mother, and the fact that Ms Crebbin has pointed out that you may, as a result of your sentence, not be able to see her again.
I, of course, have every sympathy for the predicament that you are in. But, as I am sure that Ms Crebbin has informed you and have now been advised, trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very very serious offence, so much so that the Court of Appeal have laid down guidelines and tariffs in respect of trafficking in certain drugs.
The guiding case for this type of drug, heroin, is that of Lau Tak Ming. You had in your possession for the purposes of trafficking an amount of some 400 grammes of heroin. That falls within the bracket of between 200 and 400 grammes as laid down by Lau Tak Ming, and a sentence of 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment is an appropriate starting point had you been convicted after trial.
I take a starting point of 15 years’ imprisonment given the quantity of drugs.
This did involve an importation of drugs from overseas, that is from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong, and on that basis and following the case of Abdallah, this requires an enhancement to the starting point.
In respect of the presence of this aggravating factor, I take a further enhancement of six months’ imprisonment. In those circumstances, your sentence starting point will be one of 15 years and 6 months, and giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, which is your most powerful mitigating factor, I reduce that term to one of 10 years 4 months’ imprisonment to which you shall so serve.
May I just state for the record that I have taken into account the fact that you have given a non prejudicial statement to the police and have tried to cooperate with authorities to assist in investigation, however as nothing has resulted and it has not borne fruit, I cannot take this into account as a mitigation factor. If any such factors do arise later, these will be taken up at a later date.