COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug. However, her plea does not come at the earliest opportunity. She had initially pleaded not guilty on 7 March 2024 and was committed to the Court of First Instance for trial.
Her trial was fixed to commence on 27 January 2026 with the first case management hearing to be heard on 21 July 2025. Two months before this milestone hearing date in July, the defendant informed the court she intended to plead guilty to this one count. Today, she pleads guilty and admits the Summary of Facts.
The particulars of the offence are as follows. The defendant on 5 October 2022 at Asia Airfreight Terminal 1, Hong Kong International Airport, attempted to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely, 5,952 grammes of a solid containing 4,260 grammes of cocaine.
The facts are straightforward. On that date, 5 October 2022, the defendant and another Indonesian national approached Asia Airfreight Terminal 1 to collect a consignment from Ethiopia. At the Customs Examination Hall, the consignment was examined for clearance. A Customs and Excise officer found a total of eight packets of cocaine concealed inside the inner layers of the top and bottom of four carton boxes. Under caution, the defendant admitted agreeing to collect the consignment for $500. She said she had no knowledge of the contents of the consignment.
The defendant agreed to participate in a preliminary inquiry and a controlled delivery operation. She had a contact saved in her phone as “My Boss”, and this man was going to call her to give her directions and instructions after she had collected the consignment. The controlled delivery operation failed.
The estimated market value of this cocaine was $5,136,576. Further investigation into the defendant’s mobile revealed that this man had told her that there were bad things in the boxes when they were at the airport. She had been told to tell her friend before going to the airport that the consignment contained vegetables. She only took a friend along because she had lost her own identity card and needed her friend to use her identity card to collect the consignment. Contrary to what she said in her interview, CCTV footage showed her at the airport every day between 1 October and 5 October to attempt to collect the consignment.
Mitigation
The defendant was a foreign domestic helper in Hong Kong before she was terminated but she did not return home. As has become too common a story, she remained here as a Form 8 holder since 2021 and is seeking asylum.
She is now 34 years old, single, previously had no criminal convictions in Hong Kong. Mr Hui has said all he can possibly say in mitigation.
Sentencing
I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. It is applicable to this offence, with the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the most recent authority, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150. I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.
In the approach to sentencing, a number of steps have been identified which the court should take, such as assessing the gravity of the offence and any applicable guideline; identifying the defendant’s role; where within the guideline the defendant should lie; any aggravating factors; any mitigating factors; and lastly, passing a sentence which is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.
The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guideline according to the drug. I have taken into account the latest guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234. The starting point for trafficking in cocaine between 1,500 and 5,000 grammes is 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically speaking, trafficking in 4,260 grammes of cocaine attracts a starting point of 23 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
I am satisfied that the culpability and the role of the defendant in this case was one of a courier. This is a position at the bottom of the hierarchy of drug traffickers. I find the mathematical starting point should apply. I will take a starting point of 23 years’ imprisonment.
The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors. I do not intend to enhance the sentence for the fact that the cocaine came from overseas and was imported into Hong Kong. There is no evidence she had anything to do with the actual importation itself.
However, the fact the defendant is a Form 8 holder is an aggravating factor. I intend to enhance the starting point by 1 year to reflect this. The starting point becomes 24 years.
I will reduce the 24-year starting point by 25 per cent to reflect the timing of the defendant’s plea. After that discount is applied, the defendant is sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment.
I consider the last step, and although this is a substantial term of imprisonment, in light of the circumstances of the offence as well as the defendant, I do not consider it to be unjust, unfair and imbalanced.
I repeat, after plea, the defendant is sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment.