HKSAR v. UDOH MAXWELL

HCCC 157/2023

[2026] HKCFI 2684

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 157 OF 2023

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant, Udoh Maxwell, pleaded not guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. He was convicted by a jury after trial.

Facts

The facts are relatively straightforward. A team of police officers went to Room 203 of a guesthouse known as Royal Capital Hotel, situated on the 1st Floor of Luen Tak Building on Jordan Road.

The defendant was alone lying in bed. Upon search, nothing suspicious was found on his person. In front of the bed on the floor, there was a pair of black leather shoes and police officers found two packets of crystalline solid containing 30.8 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’ inside the left shoe.

Inside a drawer of a vanity desk, police found an electronic scale and 10 empty resealable bags. There was a logo or brand name “Meadows/Home” on these 10 empty resealable bags. One of the two packets found in the left shoe also bore the same logo or brand name.

The defendant exercised his right to remain silent and he did not give evidence or call evidence for the defence. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to say that the defendant was in possession of the ‘Ice’ in question for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

As the jury found him guilty, the jury must have found on the facts they found proved that the only reasonable and irresistible inference to be drawn was that the defendant was guilty.

Background and Mitigation

Defendant is a Nigerian and a Form 8 holder. He was born in December 1978, so he is now 47 years of age. He studied up to secondary school level. He had a previous conviction of trafficking in a dangerous drug in 2004 and he was sentenced to 13 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Ms Remedios in mitigation confirmed the particulars stated in the antecedents statement except that the defendant was a drug addict. Ms Remedios urged this Court to find that the defendant was a courier and there was no evidence of actual trafficking.

Being a Form 8 holder and having a previous conviction are aggravating factors, which are accepted by Ms Remedios, but she asked this Court to consider the fact that the last conviction was back in 2004, quite a while ago. Ms Remedios also confirmed there are no mitigating factors here.

Consideration for sentence

Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence. A person convicted of this offence on indictment is liable to imprisonment for life and a fine of $5 million.

I will adopt the six steps laid down in the case Herry Jane Yusuph.

First step

The quantity of ‘Ice’ was 30.8 grammes which falls into the 10 to 70 grammes band in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang No. 3 with a starting point of 7 to 11 years after trial.

Second step

There is no evidence that the defendant is the mastermind or occupying any higher position. I will treat him as a courier.

Third step

As a courier and given the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that an appropriate starting point is one 8 years and 4 months.

Fourth step

I now have to consider the aggravating factors. The fact that the defendant was a Form 8 holder when he committed this serious offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, calls for an enhancement. The defendant’s crime showed that he betrayed the trust placed in him by the Hong Kong people and this betrayal impacted on the lives of Hong Kong citizens and the reputation of Hong Kong.

So bearing in mind the amount of dangerous drug involved in this case, I am of the view that an enhancement of 8 months is appropriate. This is for Form 8. Further, the defendant has a previous conviction of trafficking in a dangerous drug which is another aggravating factor and again bearing in mind that the conviction was back in 2004, I will enhance the sentence by another 8 months to take into account this factor.

Fifth step

I have to consider any mitigating factors. The defendant was found guilty after trial, so he is not entitled to any discount upon pleading guilty as confirmed by Ms Remedios. I also do not see any mitigating factor in this case.

Sixth step

The last step, the sixth step, is to see if the sentence is fair and just. Now the sentence, upon my calculation, is 9 years and 8 months. (8 years 4 months plus another 8 months plus another 8 months, should be 9 years and 8 months.)

So the sentence of 9 years and 8 months, I am of the view this sentence is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant. For the present offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the defendant is sentenced to 9 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.