HKSAR v. KU YUK MAN

HCCC 384/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3790

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 384 OF 2025

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to 1 count of trafficking in a dangerous drug[1] and was committed, on 6 November 2025, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The defendant confirmed her plea and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and her conviction was duly recorded.

2.  Particulars of the Charge are that the defendant, on 20 March, 2024, at Customs Arrival Hall B, Passenger Terminal Building 1, Hong Kong International Airport, Chek Lap Kok, Lantau Island, New Territories, in Hong Kong, together with other unknown persons, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 8,190 grammes of a liquid containing 3,074 grammes of cocaine.

FACTS

3.  The facts admitted can be summarized as follows.

4.  On 20 March 2024, the police conducted an anti-narcotic operation at the Hong Kong International Airport. The Defendant arrived at Hong Kong from Toronto via flight CX 829 and was intercepted by Customs officers forCustoms clearance at the Customs Arrival Hall B.

5.  At around 6:00 a.m., baggage examination was conducted on the Defendant’s belongings.  Upon search on her suitcase ("Suitcase"), 5 wine bottles containing liquid and 1 broken glass bottle with liquid leaking out were found therein, the narcotic content of which was subsequently confirmed by the Government Chemist to be a total of 8,190 grammes of a liquid containing 3,074 grammes of cocaine with details as follows.  The wine bottles are Exhibits 1 to 5.

6.  The Defendant was arrested and under caution, she stated that she was instructed to deliver the wine to Hong Kong and she had no knowledge that it was drugs.  A video-recorded interview was then conducted subsequently.  Under caution, the Defendant remained silent to most of the questions and only stated that she had not received any remuneration for the delivery yet and that the Suitcase did not belong to her and thus she did not have its password. 

7.  Manual screening was then conducted on the Defendant’s mobile phone with the passcode provided by her.  Suspicious conversations between the defendant and others on WhatsApp between January 2024 and March 2024 were revealed, including the following:

(a) WhatsApp conversation with “JL”

(i) On 21.1.2024, JL introduced her to trafficking job in Canada;

(b) WhatsApp conversation with “II”: -

(i) The arrangement of this round trip to Toronto were discussed.

(ii) On 17.3.2024, a photo of the Suitcase was sent by the defendant to “II”.

(c) WhatsApp conversation with “Tung”: -

(i) The remuneration of HK$30,000 for this trip would be given to the Defendant upon her return to Hong Kong.

(ii) Living expenses of HK$10,000 in Canada have also been discussed.

8.  From the flight booking record, the Defendant departed from Hong Kong to Toronto without any luggage on 14 March 2024 and returned from Toronto to Hong Kong with one luggage, i.e. the Suitcase, on 19 March 2024.

9.  The total drugs seized in this case were a total of 8,190 grammes of a liquid containing 3,074 grammes of cocaine.  The total estimated street value of Exhibits l to 5 is HK$2,794,266.

10.  By her admission to the Summary of Facts, the defendant admits and accepts that she was knowingly in possession of all the dangerous drugs seized in this case for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

11.  She has a clear record in Hong Kong.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

12.  Mrs Remedios, counsel for the Defendant, provided the Court with helpful and detailed written submissions for mitigation. 

13.  In summary, the Defendant was born in 1997 and she is now 29 years old.

14.  She received education in Hong Kong up to form six level.

15.  She resided with her parents and younger brother at a public housing estate unit in Aberdeen.   Her father is a factory worker. Her mother is a housewife.  Her younger brother is a meat worker.

16.  Previously, the Defendant had worked as a clerk in a fire service installation contractor, earning around HKD15,000 per month.

17.  The Defendant in her letter to the court has expressed her remorse and engaged in self-reflection during the period on remand.  She is also in the right tracks of rehabilitation and has enrolled in a number of courses.

18.  Mrs. Remedios informed the court that the defendant is remorseful for the offences and pleads for leniency. Her remorse is shown by her timely guilty plea.

SENTENCING

19.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for trafficking in dangerous drugs is life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

20.  The six-step sentencing approach introduced by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[2], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[3], are applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff band

21.  Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question.

22.  This case concerns cocaine.  For the 3,074 grammes of cocaine the sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 for cocaine are applied and it would fall at under the band of “1,500 - 5,000 grammes: 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

23.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant.  

24.  I accept Mrs Remedios’ submission that the Defendant in this case is mere courier.

25.  However, as fairly accepted by Mrs Remedios, there is an “international element” in this case which aggravates the culpability.

26.  As the Court of Appeal explained in HKSAR v Raman Kapusamy [2024] 2 HKLRD 955, the international element is to be considered as part of the assessment of the offender's role and culpability.  It is a factor or circumstance in the commission of the offence, albeit one which normally made the offender's role and culpability more serious and enhanced the starting point for sentence.

27.  While many cases would continue to be distinguishable only by the quantities of narcotic being trafficked, there were others where the sentencing judge may adopt a more tailored approach to sentence by assessing the offender's role and culpability. It was no longer productive to consider standard or uniform enhancements for the international elementdepending on the quantity. Nevertheless, sentencing judges should consider that the greater the quantity the drugs, the more harm was caused by that quantity entering Hong Kong and being disseminated. Quantity must, therefore, still play a role in any enhancement for the international factor (Raman Kapusamy See paras 55-59).

28.  The international element may take a number of different forms including the carrying of drugs across borders by couriers, importing drugs, receiving a parcel from abroad, and ordering drugs from abroad. These were not exhaustive categories and even within them, there may be variations and different gradations of seriousness in assessing different roles and culpability. The international element therefore may not lend itself to standard or uniform enhancement.

29.  The Court in Raman Kapusamy stated at para.60: “…The most common example to come before the courts is the courier who, for a fee or reward, crosses the border with dangerous drugs secreted in or on their person or in their luggage.”  However, I note that this case has the additional feature whereby the Defendant in fact flew from Hong Kong to Toronto to collect the cocaine with expenses in Canada potentially covered, in addition to the remuneration for the round-trip.

30.  But “Whatever form the international element takes in the context of trafficking in dangerous drugs, all offenders have one thing in common: they have each either arranged, or caused or facilitated dangerous drugs to be brought over the border illegally into (or out of) Hong Kong. That is essentially what the international element in the present context means.” (§61).

31.  In Lee Ming Ho (§58), the Court explained that: -

“… there may be a distinction between the foreigner arriving in Hong Kong for the first time from an impoverished country with a consignment of dangerous drugs, who may not, through naivetyor lack of education, fully appreciate the enormity of what he is doing and the appalling consequences of the punishment that will be meted out when he is caught; and the courier from Hong Kong, who journeys across the world to collect a consignment of drugs in order to bring it back to Hong Kong, knowing full well the gravity of his crime and what awaits him when he returns.”

32.  The Defendant in this case falls into the latter type described in the quotation.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

33.  On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline band: 3,074 grammes of cocaine would lead to a notional starting point of 21 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

34.  In determining the appropriate overall starting point, I must also take into consideration the role and the culpability of the defendant.  Her role is a mere courier, but with the “international element” and viewing that in context of the quantity of drugs involved in this case – I shall enhance the overall starting point by 2 years resulting in an overall starting point of 23 years and 9 months’ imprisonment at this step.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

35.  There are no aggravating factors applicable in this case.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

36.  I have considered the mitigation advanced on behalf of the Defendant together with the mitigation letters from her and her family.

37.  Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the only strong mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is her guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, she is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the sentence down to 15 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

Step 6: Totality

38.  In my judgment, this is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the offence and offender for the reasons stated above.

FINAL SENTENCE

39.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 15 years and 10 months.