HKSAR v. CELE FEZEKA WENZILE

HCCC 356/2024

[2025] HKCFI 4840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 356 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 28 October 2024. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed her plea and her agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of the charge state that on 17 June 2023, at Customs Arrival Hall B, Passenger Terminal Building 1, Hong Kong International Airport, Chek Lap Kok, Lantau Island, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 1,000.5 grammes of a solid containing 861.6 grammes of cocaine. 

3.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows.  On 17 June 2023, the defendant took Flight AK138 from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia to Hong Kong.  At about 11.41 am on the same day, the defendant presented herself to the Immigration Department for arrival clearance and was granted permission to stay as a visitor. 

4.  At about 12.19 pm on the same day, the defendant was intercepted at Customs Arrival Hall B, Passenger Terminal 1, Hong Kong International Airport.  At the time, the defendant was carrying a locked suitcase, a black backpack, a paper box, a neck pillow, and a tripod.  The defendant was then directed to undergo customs clearance. 

5.  Customs Officer 18193 examined the defendant’s suitcase (the “Suitcase”) by way of an X-ray scan and found some irregularities.  Customs Officer 18193 thus asked the defendant as to whom the Suitcase belonged to. The defendant replied that the Suitcase belonged to her.  Customs Officer 18193 then told the defendant that she had to examine the contents of the Suitcase.  In response, the defendant took out a bunch of two keys from her backpack and used one of the keys to open the lock of the Suitcase.  Upon checking the Suitcase, seven boxes of perfume were found inside. 

6.  At about 11.45 am on 18 June 2023, Customs Officer 18503 examined the seven perfume boxes in the presence of the defendant.  Inside each of the boxes, a perfume bottle was found.  After opening the perfume bottles, a total of 21 packages (E1-E21) were found.  The Government Chemist later examined them.  In summary, the total amount of cocaine in E1 to E21 was 1,000.5 grammes of a solid containing 861.6 grammes of cocaine. 

7.  In June 2023, the estimated street value of all the cocaine found and seized in the Suitcase was HK$784,392. 

8.  The defendant in the Summary of Facts expressly admits and accepts that she was knowingly in possession of all the cocaine found and seized in the Suitcase for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.  In short, as submitted by the defendant, the Summary of Facts support the defendant’s claim that in this operation, she was no more than a simple courier bringing the drugs in question from Brazil to Hong Kong via Malaysia.  She had no influence at all over the trafficking operation.  

9.  Regarding the personal background of the defendant, the defendant is the holder of a Republic of South Africa passport.  She was born on 21 October 1997 and is now 27 years of age.  She has a clear record both in Hong Kong and in South Africa. 

10.  The defendant is single.  She has a 10‑year‑old son.  She received up to secondary level education in South Africa. 

11.  I am told that her offending was promoted by the fact that she was in need of money to support herself, her son, and her desire to go to university.  This is why she was persuaded by her Nigerian boyfriend to take up the opportunity to bring the dangerous drugs into Hong Kong for a reward of US$2,500. 

12.  The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.  The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band or bracket applicable to the quantity of drug concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes.  It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant.  The fourth step is to consider the aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “special circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”.  The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just, and balanced sentence”. 

13.  Regarding the first step, for 861.6 grammes of cocaine, the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, at paragraph 62. 

14.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a courier, in that she brought the drugs from Brazil to Hong Kong via Malaysia.  However, this case clearly involves an international element.  This is an important factor when assessing the role and culpability of the defendant in order to identify the appropriate starting

point for sentence. I have to bear in mind the quantity of narcotic being introduced into Hong Kong, which not only increases the supply of the particular dangerous drug but causes great harm to the community: see HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho, supra, at paragraph 74.

15.  Third, for 861.6 grammes of cocaine, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a notional sentence after trial of 17 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.  For the international element of this case as held above, I would increase the notional sentence after trial by 12 months, taking it to 18 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. 

16.  Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating factors which would enhance the notional sentence after trial. 

17.  Fifth, as a matter of discretion, I would afford the defendant a discount of 2 months for her participation in Father Wotherspoon’s programme.  This would take the notional sentence after trial down to 18 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. 

18.  As submitted by the defendant, the defendant’s principal mitigation is her timely plea and her willingness to assist in the controlled operation, for which I will give her a full one-third discount as suggested by the defendant. 

19.  Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reduced to 12 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.   

20.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 12 years and 2 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just, and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of the defendant. 

21.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 12 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.