HKSAR v. WONG TSZ YING PHOEBE

HCCC 122/2024

[2026] HKCFI 618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 122 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.  The Defendant, Wong Tsz Ying Phoebe (D2), pleaded guilty to one count of “Trafficking in a dangerous drug”, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

2.  The particulars of the charge aver that on 28 June 2022, outside Crowne Plaza Hong Kong Kowloon East Hotel, Tseung Kwan O, in Hong Kong, together with other person or persons unknown, she unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 807.39 grammes of cocaine (804 grammes in liquid form and 3.39 grammes in solid form).

FACTS

3.  On 20 June 2022, Hong Kong Customs officers at the airport examined a shipment from Germany and discovered a suspicious parcel.  Inside were two plastic bottles containing a liquid that tested positive for cocaine.  The parcel was addressed to “Shipgo Logistics” in Tsuen Wan.

4.  A controlled delivery operation was arranged.  On 28 June 2022, the first defendant, Chan Ka-lok (D1), arrived at Shipgo’s office, provided a collection code, and took possession of the parcel.  He was arrested shortly afterward and agreed to cooperate with Customs.

5.  D1 then contacted an individual known only as “Ah B” via WhatsApp, who instructed him to deliver the parcel to East Kowloon.  Later that evening, D1—under customs surveillance—met the second defendant, Wong Tsz Ying Phoebe (D2), outside a hotel in Tseung Kwan O.  D2 took the parcel from D1 and was immediately arrested.

6.  During her arrest, D2 was found carrying a mobile phone with a SIM card that matched the contact number used by “Ah B”.  She claimed she did not know what was in the parcel or whether she would be paid for collecting it.

7.  Subsequent forensic analysis confirmed the parcel contained 804 grammes of cocaine in liquid form and 3.39 grammes in solid form, with an estimated street value of over HK$675,000.

8.  D2 admitted that, at the time, she was in possession of the drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

9.  D2 is 28 years old, locally born, and from a working-class family.  Before her arrest, she worked as an Electrical Worker in the construction industry, earning a daily wage and contributing to her family’s expenses.  She lived with her parents in a public housing unit.  Her parents are now in their fifties and still working.

10.  She has no previous conviction.  Her involvement in the offence arose after she was introduced to cocaine by “Ah B,” a workmate who later exploited her financial vulnerability and drug dependency.  On the day of the offence, “Ah B” offered her a small quantity of cocaine in exchange for collecting the parcel.

11.  D2 has expressed remorse and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.  While in custody, she has pursued bible studies, vocational courses, and self-improvement programs, demonstrating a commitment to rehabilitation.

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS

12.  In sentencing, I have carefully considered the facts, the mitigation put forward, and the relevant sentencing guidelines, including the six-step approach set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

Step 1: Guideline Band

13.  The quantity of cocaine involved (807.39 grammes)  falls within the guideline band of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in between 500 grammes and 1,500 grammes of cocaine, as set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

Step 2: Role and Culpability

14.  D2 acted as a courier.  Her role was limited to collecting the parcel from D1 and passing it to “Ah B”.  While her role is at the lower end of the hierarchy, she was an essential link in the trafficking chain.

Step 3: Starting Point

15.  Taking the mid-point of the guideline band and adjusting for the quantity, I adopt a starting point of 17 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

Step 4: Aggravating Factors

16.  The offence involved an international element, as the drugs originated from Germany.  However, there is no evidence that D2 was aware of the overseas origin.  In line with the judgment by the Court of Appeal in Herry Jane Yusuph (supra.)  and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, no separate enhancement is applied for this factor in her case.

Step 5: Mitigating Factors

17.  The following mitigating factors put forward by the defence counsel include:

•  Timely guilty plea, entitling her to a full one-third discount.

•  Clear record and genuine remorse.

•  Personal circumstances, including her previous employment and family support.

•  Rehabilitation efforts while in custody.

18.  It was also stressed that no monetary reward was received and her involvement was induced by drug dependency and manipulation.

19.  However, the only effective mitigation is her timely plea which saves the court’s time and indication of genuine remorse.

Step 6: Overall Sentence

20.  After applying the one-third discount for her early plea, the sentence is reduced from 17 years and 3 months to 11 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

21.  I have reviewed the sentence to ensure it is just and balanced in all the circumstances.  While severe, it reflects the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence, while giving due weight to D2’s lower role and personal mitigation.

ORDER

22.  D2 is sentenced to 11 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.