HKSAR v. SITI JENAB

HCCC 423/2023

[2025] HKCFI 4127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 423 OF 2023

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to traffic in dangerous drugs. However, this plea does not come at the earliest opportunity. Defendant was committed to the Court of First Instance for trial on 11 December 2023, after a plea of not guilty in the committal court. The trial was fixed for 29 January 2026, with the first case management hearing set down for 16 July 2025.

On 30 June 2025, the defendant informed the court of her intention to plead guilty to the charge. Today, the defendant has pleaded guilty, agreed the Summary of Facts and has been convicted. The particulars of the charge are as follows.

The defendant, on 16 November 2021, together with other persons known as Madam and Rendra, attempted to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely, 743 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 578 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. This was a parcel pickup case. On 13 November, customs officers inspected a DHL parcel arrived at Hong Kong from South Africa purporting to contain ceramic goods.

A controlled delivery operation was conducted after the drugs of this charge were found inside the parcel. The recipient in the manifest was contacted by an undercover Customs and Excise officer on 15 November. Delivery was arranged for the following day. The date and time and address was confirmed.

After much toing and froing, eventually the defendant approached the customs officer dressed as a DHL courier and showed him a message on her mobile phone containing the details of the airway bill for this parcel. The defendant signed for the parcel and collected it. She boarded a taxi with it. The taxi was also an undercover customs officer. The woman on her mobile phone talking to the defendant gave instructions to the taxi driver in English to go to Wan Chai.

Once the taxi reached that destination, the same woman on the mobile phone told the taxi driver to go to Tsim Sha Tsui Mirador Mansions. The taxi drove to Mirador Mansions and the defendant paid the taxi fare. She asked the taxi driver to wait and left the parcel in the taxi. She got out. As soon as the defendant got out, she was arrested by other customs officers and under caution, she said that the parcel belonged to her boyfriend’s friend named Madam.

Subsequently, and again under caution, the defendant admitted she had no employment in Hong Kong, no fixed abode, nor any money. She had met a man one month earlier, but did not know any of his personal particulars. He asked her to collect the parcel and gave her the airway bill details. He told her she would get $100 as a reward for collecting the parcel. She was given instructions over the phone by a woman she thought was called Madam after she collected the parcel and got into a taxi.

Subsequently, it was discovered that the defendant had come to Hong Kong from Indonesia to work as a foreign domestic helper, but during her second contract had been prematurely terminated. Instead of leaving Hong Kong, she remained here and overstayed. She now admits that at the time she knew the parcel contained dangerous drugs and she was collecting it for others.

Mitigation

Mr Marry has said all he can say in mitigation. The defendant is now 39 years old, an Indonesian national, and divorced with two children. As I said, she came to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper, was prematurely terminated during her second contract here, but overstayed.

She relied on friends to feed her and give her board. She met this man, Rendra, who knew she had no money and was in financial difficulty. He befriended her, took advantage of her, and persuaded her to collect a parcel of drugs for him. Sadly, not an uncommon story here in Hong Kong for those who overstay.

She admits she knew the parcel contained drugs and her role was to collect it. After she collected it, she would have been told what to do with it by the others, her co‑conspirators. She thought her relationship with this man was genuine and had never met the woman known to her as Madam. Despite this, she was taking instructions from this woman on the day.

Mr Marray has urged me to consider at least a 25 per cent discount for the defendant, since she will not benefit from a full one-third discount for a plea at the earliest opportunity. I have also today received a letter from the defendant herself.

Sentencing

I have considered the approach to sentencing those that attempt to or traffic in dangerous drugs, as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. This case was recently discussed and reiterated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150.

In the approach to sentencing, six steps have been identified which the court should take, such as assessing the gravity of the offence and the 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 drugs seized. The tariff for the drug ‘Ice’ is set out in the latest authority of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA.

Where between 300 and 600 grammes of ‘Ice’ is trafficked, the starting point after trial should be between 15 to 18 years’ imprisonment. Here we have 578 grammes of ‘Ice’. Therefore, mathematically speaking, that amount of dangerous drugs will attract a starting point of 17 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

The second step of the six steps is to assess the defendant’s role and culpability based upon the evidence. I accept that the defendant acted as a courier, collecting and delivering the parcel on the instructions of others, her co‑conspirators. I find the mathematical starting point should apply. I take it to be one of 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors. I see no such factors in this case. I do not intend to enhance that starting point for the international element here. I am satisfied she had nothing to do with the import of the parcel itself.

The defendant pleaded guilty after her trial was set down, but before the first case management hearing. I intend to reduce the starting point by 25 per cent to reflect this situation. After that discount is applied to a starting point of 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, the defendant is sentenced to 13 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

With the last step in mind, I consider this sentence, although substantial, to be fair, just and balanced in light of the sentencing authorities, circumstances of the offence, as well as those of the defendant. I repeat, accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 13 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.