HKSAR v. LAW YUEN YI, JOEY

HCCC 310/2023

[2025] HKCFI 3496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 310 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Introduction

1.  Defendant pleaded not guilty to one count of “Trafficking in a dangerous drug”, contrary to section 4(l)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

2.  The particulars of the charge avers that Defendant on the 5^th day of November, 2021, at Room A, 8^th Floor, Excelsior Building, Nos. 68-76 Sha Tsui Road, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 3,752 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 3,752 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as ICE).

3.  After trial, by a majority of 5:2, the jury found her guilty as charged on 27 May 2025.

Facts

4.  The Prosecution case is that, on 1 November 2021, two parcels originated from Thailand were intercepted and examined by the customs officers of the Postal Clearance Division at the Hong Kong International Airport.  Dangerous Drug in the form of methamphetamine hydrochloride was found to have been hidden inside the wheels and doors of the toy car inside each of the two parcels.  According to the subsequent examination by the Government Chemist as stated in the Admitted Facts, there is a total of 3,752 grammes of ICE and the total street value of the ICE at the time of the offence was HK$2,622,648.  The parcels, according to the shipping document attached to it, were said to be Car Toys and were to be delivered to Green Business Centre on the 8^th Floor, Excelsior Building, Nos. 68-76 Sha Tsui Road, Tsuen Wan and the recipient of the parcels was stated in the airway bills attached to the parcels as Law Yuen Yi, Joey (“Defendant”).

5.  Customs officers later conducted a controlled delivery operation at the Green Business Centre address.  On 4 November 2021, customs officers went to the office of the Green Business Centre and contacted the manager there to arrange for the two parcels containing their original contents to be collected by Defendant.  A Customer Service officer of the business centre then sent a WhatsApp message to Defendant and informed her that there was a parcel to be picked up.  A person identifying herself as Defendant later called back by phone and stated that she was unable to collect the parcel that day and asked to collect the parcel the next day.

6.  Defendant was arrested on 5 November 2021 when she went up to the Green Business Centre at about 1506 hours and received the parcels from the customs officers who posed as staff members of the business centre.  After Defendant was arrested, she told the custom officers that she was to take the two parcels to the Ground Floor and she would contact another person by telephone who would then come to collect the parcels from her and she would be paid $3,000.  Defendant agreed to assist the custom officers and take part in a controlled delivery operation in which a male surnamed Szeto was finally arrested on the Ground Floor lift lobby of the Excelsior building.  Szeto has already pleaded guilty in attempting to traffic in the methamphetamine hydrochloride seized from the two parcels.

7.  After Defendant was arrested, custom officers went to Defendant’s home in a public housing unit at Mei Tin Estate, Tai Wai and conducted a house search in which the same electricity bill that had been uploaded to the business center as proof of address was found.

8.  In the subsequent video-recorded interview (“VRI”)  held in the Customs Headquarter, Defendant answered the questions and gave some details of how she would come to the business center to collect the parcels.  It is a mixed statement in which she agreed that she received instruction from a Miss Chan and went to the business centre to collect the parcels but she denied any knowledge of the dangerous drug inside the parcels and claimed that she believed that she was just picking up an ordinary parcel that contained toy cars for which she would be paid $3,000.

9.  The prosecution case is that on the evidence before the jury, they can draw the irresistible inference that Defendant collected the two parcels, knowing that they contained dangerous drug, with the aim to deliver the parcels to another person waiting downstairs for a reward of probably even more than $3,000 as she stated.  In so doing, she was dealing with the dangerous drug which amounts to trafficking in a dangerous drug.  Defendant’s claims in the VRI that she was just collecting ordinary parcels or she did not know the contents of the parcels contained dangerous drug was simply untrue.

10.  Defendant, as of her right, elected not to testify before the jury.

11.  By the majority verdict reached by the jury, after hearing the evidence, they must be satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case against Defendant and rejected the claim by Defendant that she has no knowledge of the existence of dangerous drug in the parcels.

Personal background and Mitigations

12.  Defendant is now 47 years old.  She was born and raised in Hong Kong.  She had received a Master degree from the Chinese University of Hong Kong (majoring in English Literature)  and she has a clear record.  After leaving school, for around 20 years, Defendant has been working as a private tutor, and a piano and violin instructor, earning a monthly income of HK$20,000 to HK$30,000.  According to her counsel, Mr. David Iu, Defendant is still single and comes from a blue-collar family.  Her father, aged 78, has been suffering from lumbar cancer and her mother, aged 68, has already retired.  Her younger brother, aged 43, is mentally retarded and has been unemployed.  Defendant had a good relationship with her parents but due to grudges between Defendant and the brother, Defendant had to move out and had been living alone prior to her arrest.  She has been a responsible daughter and cares much about her family.  She relied wholly on scholarships to pay her tuition fees and whilst she was at work, she still participated in various volunteer service by serving as a private tutor.  She contributed around $8,000 each month towards family expenses.  The poor health of her father and the huge medical expenses for his surgery in hospital has brought Defendant into financial hardship.  

Sentencing considerations

13.  Before sentencing, I have carefully considered the facts, the background and mitigations put forward and the relevant sentencing guidelines and authorities.

14.  “Drug-trafficking” is one of the most serious offences in Hong Kong.  The maximum sentence is life imprisonment and a fine of HK$5,000,000.  Those who commit this offence are expected to be severely dealt with by the court and is going to face a very long term of imprisonment. 

15.  In HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[2021] 1 HKLRD 290, the Court of Appeal has laid down a six-step approach in sentencing drug-trafficking offence.  The 6-step approach may be summarized as follows:

Step 1 - identifying the relevant guideline band;

Step 2 - assessing the role and culpability of the defendant;

Step 3 - identifying the starting point;

Step 4 - any aggravating factors;

Step 5 - any mitigating factors; and

Step 6 - fixing an overall sentence that is fair, just and balanced.

16.  In Step 1, according to the revised guidelines laid down in the recent case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang CACC 106/2022, the tariff for trafficking in between 1,500 and 5,000 grammes of ICE would be between 20 and 24 years.  The present case involves 3,752 grammes of ICE.  Mathematically speaking, the appropriate starting point should be 22 years and 7 months as submitted by Mr. Iu.

17.  As to the defendant's role and culpability in Step 2, Mr. Iu submitted that, based on the evidence, Defendant was only a courier who was told to collect the two parcels and she was not responsible for bringing the drug into Hong Kong.  Defendant should therefore be sentenced on the basis that she is a simple courier.  

18.  Mr. Iu acknowledged in mitigation that there should be an enhancement on the starting point to reflect the international element involved in this case as the two parcels Defendant intended to collect were originated from Thailand.  The defence simply urges the court to exercise its discretion in not enhancing the sentence to a great extent.

19.  In HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLDR 1186,the Court of Appeal held that the presence of an international element in  trafficking is now a matter that goes to the role and culpability of the offender when identifying the starting point rather than being viewed as a separate and additional aggravating feature.

20.  Based on the large quantity of ICE involved and the presence of international element in this case, I would have considered an enhancement of 24 months if Defendant was directly bringing the ICE across the borders into the territory.  According to the Court of Appeal remarks in HKSAR v SK Wasim [2020] 2 HKLRD 1139, Defendant was merely acting on instruction to collect the two parcels posted from aboard which she knew containing dangerous drug.  Her culpability should be categorized only as “facilitating the importation into Hong Kong” and there is no evidence that she was involved in the arrangement of the importation of the drug concerned.  Accordingly, the role of Defendant is just aiding and abetting the importation of the drug as opposed to directly carrying the drug from Thailand to Hong Kong and the level and degree as to the nature and gravity of the international element must be less serious.  Also taking into account the already lengthy imprisonment that Defendant is facing, I finally decide to enhance the starting point by only 11 months to 23 years and 6 months in Step 3.  

21.  As for Step 4, I do not consider that there is any further aggravating factor.

22.  As for Step 5, Defendant pleaded not guilty and was convicted after trial.  The Court would never accept any economic reason for committing crimes and the Court of Appeal had repeated stressed that in serious offences such as the present, family circumstances virtually play no part in mitigation.  However, she had co-operated with the custom officers after arrest and participated in the controlled delivery operation by providing the access of the custom officers to her mobile phones for the purpose of further communication with the male Szeto which eventually leading to his arrest.  Defendant’s assistance to the authority is therefore fruitful and of practical value. 

23.  In HKSAR v Nkwo Nnaemeka Darlington [2016] 1 HKLRD 692, the Court of Appeal observed that there could not be any fixed percentage or identifiable range of percentage to be applied to assistance in controlled delivery cases.  Neither a straightjacket approach nor the application of a percentage discount range was desirable; every case was different and there could not be a fixed percentage applied to all or even similar cases.  Such factors would include: (i)  the nature and effect of any voluntary participation; (ii)  the outcome of the assistance: was it successful in bringing to justice persons who would not otherwise have been brought to justice?; (iii)  the degree or extent of assistance which had been provided; and (iv)  the degree of risk to which the defendant had exposed himself or his family.  It was a matter within the discretion of the judge, given the particular factors which bore on the discount to be accorded in any particular case.  Also, the Court of Final Appeal in Z v HKSAR(2007)  10 HKCFAR 183 had endorsed a practice of giving a 40% discount (including the one-third reduction for the plea of guilty itself)  to a defendant who had provided valuable assistance to authorities resulting in a conviction but without having had to testify in court.  Therefore, the component for such assistance could be quantified at most, as an extra 6.7% discount from the starting point.  For this reason, I am prepare to grant Defendant an extra discount of 15 months (around 6%)  for her participation in the controlled delivery operation.  After reducing the starting point of 23 years and 6 months by 15 months, the resulting sentence is 22 years and 3 months of imprisonment.

24.  Step 6 is to ask the court to review the final sentence to make sure that it is just and balanced in all the circumstances.  The sentence of 22 years and 3 months is no doubt harsh to Defendant but in light of the seriousness of the offence she had committed and also her role and culpability, the sentence I shall impose is only just and balanced to the offence as well as to Defendant.

Order

25.  Defendant is sentenced to 22 years and 3 months of imprisonment.