HKSAR v. ZSOLT SIPOS AND ANOTHER

HCCC 101/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3831

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 101 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug before a Magistrate at the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts on 9 March 2026, and were committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this Court, both the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants have confirmed their guilty plea and their admission of the Summary of Facts.

2.  On 8 February 2025, at Customs Arrival Hall B, Passenger Terminal Building 1, Hong Kong International Airport, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants unlawfully trafficked in 1,163 grammes of a solid containing 826 grammes of cocaine.

3.  The case is straightforward. The Summary of Facts admitted by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants are as follows.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

4.  At late night on 8 February 2025, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants arrived at Hong Kong International Airport from Paris via Zurich, Switzerland. They were subsequently intercepted by a customs officer when passing the Green Channel of Customs Arrival Hall B. Nothing suspicious was found on examination of their luggage.

5.  The customs officers suspected the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants had internally concealed dangerous drugs and sent them to North Lantau Hospital for medical examination, which revealed the presence of foreign objects inside their body cavities.

6.  At 00:10 hours on 9 February 2025, the 2^nd Defendant discharged a pellet from her vagina. At 04:50 hours on the same day, the 1^st Defendant discharged 9 pellets from his anus.

7.  Both the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants were then transferred to Queen Elizabeth Hospital for admission until 12 February 2025. During their admission, the 1^st Defendant discharged a total of 100 pellets from his anus containing a total of 803 grammes of a solid containing 563 grammes of cocaine. The 2^nd Defendant discharged a total of 31 pellets from her vagina or anus containing a total of 360 grammes of a solid containing 263 grammes of cocaine.

8.  According to the records of the Immigration Department, on the material day, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants entered Hong Kong for the first time.

9.  A hotel booking record of “Toronto Inn” at 8/F Mirador Mansion, Nathan Road was found on the 1^st Defendant. According to the staff of Toronto Inn, they have received a prepaid reservation in the name of the 1st Defendant for two people from 8 to 12 February 2025.

10.  Since no interpreter was available before the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants were charged in Court, the post-record of the caution of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants by officers in English were not signed by them, and no video recorded interview was conducted with them.

11.  The estimated street value of cocaine seized from the 1^st Defendant was HK$ 635,976 and that seized from the 2^nd Defendant was HK$ 285,120. The total street value of all the cocaine seized from the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants was therefore HK$ 921,096.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

The 1^st Defendant

12.  The 1^st Defendant was born in 1993 and is now 33 years old. He is the holder of a Hungarian Passport, with a hitherto clear criminal record in Hong Kong.

13.  Mr. Percy, counsel for the 1^st Defendant, submitted that the 1st Defendant has 2 sons from a previous relationship, who are 11 and 6 years old respectively. He used to work in the construction industry as a labourer. He also produced one mitigation letter written by the 1st Defendant in English, with the help of a friend.

The 2^nd Defendant

14.  The 2^nd Defendant was born in 1992 and is now 33 years old. She is the holder of a Hungarian Passport, with a hitherto clear criminal record in Hong Kong. She was 1^st Defendant’s partner at the material time.

15.  Mr. Polson, counsel for the 2^nd Defendant, submitted that the 2nd Defendant is a mother of three sons, aged 17, 12 and 11 respectively from a previous relationship. He submitted that her main mitigating factor was her early plea of guilty. The mitigation letter written by the 2nd Defendant in Hungarian was read out in Court in English through the English-Hungarian interpreter.

SENTENCING

16.  With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186, I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

Step One: Trafficking Guideline

17.  Step 1 involves the identification of the appropriate initial sentencing range applicable to the quantity of drugs involved. The narcotic content of the total quantity of the dangerous drug is 826 grammes of cocaine.

18.  According to the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in cocaine set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, the tariff band for 500 grammes to 1,500 grammes of cocaine is 16 to 20 years of imprisonment.

19.  Mathematically, the notional starting point for the present case would be 17 years and 3 months (207.648 months) of imprisonment. This is the same calculation arrived at by counsel for the 1^st Defendant and counsel for the 2^nd Defendant.

Step Two: The Defendants’ role and culpability

20.  I accept that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants were mere couriers. There is no evidence to establish that they were engaged in actual or direct trafficking which went beyond that of a courier, as explained in paragraph 62 of Herry Jane Yusuph, supra.

21.  Given that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants had the drugs concealed in the body cavities and had smuggled them into Hong Kong, there is clearly an international element involved.  Bringing drugs across the border from overseas will attract an enhancement in the starting point. The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants were international drug couriers. I do differentiate the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants from a Hong Kong local leaving Hong Kong to collect drugs to bring back into Hong Kong. Considering the quantity of narcotics, I increase the starting point by 15 months to 18 years 6 months’ imprisonment (222 months).

Step Three: Starting Point

22.  Considering the overall role and culpability of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants, including the international element, I adopt the starting point of 18 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

Step Four: Aggravating factors

23.  There are no other aggravating factors in this case.

Step Five: Mitigating factors

24.  The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants pleaded guilty, for which each of them is entitled to the full one-third discount. As for the personal and family circumstances of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that they carry little weight in serious drug trafficking cases.

25.  A letter from Father John Wotherspoon dated 6^th June 2026 was sent to the Court by mail directly, for the purpose of mitigation for the 1^st Defendant and the 2^nd Defendant. I am full of admiration of the commitment of Father Wotherspoon in what he has been doing in his campaign and in asking for leniency on behalf of defendants involved in international drug trafficking activities, including the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants in the present case. At the same time, in this connection, I agree with Macrae VP’s observations in HKSAR v Kilima Abubakar Abbas [2018] 5 HKLRD 88, in particular paragraphs 87 and 88 of the Judgment.

26.  In my view, there are no mitigating factors which would warrant further reduction in sentence other than that for the guilty plea.

Step Six: Overall Sentence

27.  After the full one-third discount, the sentence is reduced to 12 years and 4 months’ (148 months’) imprisonment.

ORDER

28.  The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants are each sentenced to 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.