HKSAR v. WONG FAI KIU

HCCC 63/2024

[2026] HKCFI 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 63 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The Defendant was charged with one count of conspiracy to traffick in a dangerous drug, namely between a date unknown in August 2022 and 31 August 2022, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, conspired together with the Tse Hei-wai (“Madam Tse”), and a person unknown to unlawfully traffick in a dangerous drug, namely cocaine, country to sections 4(1)(a) and (3) and 39 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.  The Defendant originally pleaded not guilty and was committed to this Court for trial. 

2.  On the first day of trial (i.e. 3^rd February 2026), her counsel, Mr. Luk, informed this Court of the Defendant’s intention to plead guilty to the offence.  Accordingly, on 6^th February 2026, she was convicted as charged following her plea of guilty and admission to the Summary of Facts. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS

3.  The facts which the Defendant admitted can be summarised as follows.  In the morning of 31^st August 2022, Madam Tse (i.e. the Defendant in HCCC 64/2024) arrived at Hong Kong International Airport on a commercial flight from Dubai via Manila.  She picked up two suitcases from a baggage carousel and proceeded to leave the arrival hall.  She was intercepted by Customs Officers.  Four blocks of white substance were found in the concealed compartment of each of the suitcases.  There were eight bags of suspected dangerous drugs in total.  Under caution, Madam Tse said she owed money to someone and therefore agreed to help someone known as “Ben” to bring the illicit drugs to Hong Kong for a promised reward of HK$150,000. 

4.  The white substance was confirmed to be a total of 6,567 grammes of a solid containing 4,998 grammes of cocaine.  The estimated street value was between HK$5,600,000 and HK$10,600,000. 

5.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, Madam Tse said the following under caution.  Her friend ‘Ah Fei’ referred someone called ‘Ben’ to her, but she had never personally met this man.  A few days before 25^th August 2022, she was asked by Ah Fei to fly to Dubai to bring something back to Hong Kong. She agreed and provided a photograph of her passport to Ah Fei.  Ben then sent her the round-trip flight tickets and hotel booking confirmation records. Madam Tse then departed Hong Kong for Dubai on 25^th August 2022. Upon arrival in Dubai, Ah Fei rang her and asked her to collect two suitcases outside the hotel.  Ah Fei also told her that the suitcases contained illicit drugs.  Subsequently, Madam Tse obtained the two suitcases from an unknown man.  She took photographs of the suitcases and forwarded the images to Ben via WhatsApp.  At the airport in Dubai, Madam Tse had checked in the two suitcases for her flight back to Hong Kong.  Whilst in Dubai, Madam Tse had made bank transfers to Ah Fei, because Ah Fei agreed to assist her to repay the debts in Hong Kong.  Before returning to Hong Kong, Madam Tse followed the instructions of Ah Fei and Ben, and deleted all the WhatsApp and call records with them.  Madam Tse said she did not receive the monetary reward as previously promised. 

6.  Investigation by the police revealed that Ah Fei was in fact the Defendant.  On 26^th September 2022, the Defendant was arrested for the offence of conspiracy to traffick in a dangerous drug.  Under caution, the Defendant said she knew ‘Ah Wai’ owed much money to someone, and she referred Ah Wai to an unknown person called Ben for the purpose of delivering illicit drugs to Hong Kong. 

7.  During the subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant said the following under caution.  She had known Ah Wai for about half a year.  She knew Ah Wai’s surname was Tse but did not know her full name.  Ah Wai would call her ‘Ah Fei’. 

8.  The Defendant said Ah Wai had asked her to find a high‑paying job to pay off her debts.  In early- to mid-August, the Defendant had been referred to an unknown person called Ben who was offering a reward of HK$150,000 for delivering drugs from overseas to Hong Kong.  Such an offer included flight tickets and hotel accommodation.  The Defendant said she then told Ah Wai about the offer and forwarded Ah Wai’s mobile number to Ben.  After a few days, Ah Wai informed the Defendant that (i) flights and accommodation had been arranged, (ii) the destination was Dubai and (iii) when the expected arrival date back to Hong Kong would be.  Subsequently, the Defendant was told by Ben that something might have happened to Ah Wai, so she (the Defendant) must delete all the conversation records with Ben and Ah Wai. 

9.  The Defendant said she did not receive any reward in this incident.  Call records of the Defendant’s mobile number between 9^th August 2022 to 31^st August 2022 show that the Defendant had called Madam Tse’s Dubai SIM card number on 5 occasions and had received incoming calls from Madam Tse on 7 occasions during the same period. 

10.  In a formal identification parade, the Defendant was positively identified by Madam Tse as the person she knew as Ah Fei. 

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

11.  The defendant was born in 1999 and is now 26 years old.  She is single.  She has a hitherto clear criminal record in Hong Kong. 

12.  She was educated up to Form 3. Prior to her arrest, the Defendant worked as a chef, earning around HK$22,000 a month.  She lived with her mother.

13.  The Defendant first met Madam Tse in a bar and learned that Madam Tse was under financial pressure to repay a HK$300,000 debt.  At first, the Defendant referred Madam Tse to debt restructuring.  After knowing that Madam Tse was not eligible for debt restructuring, the Defendant introduced Ben to Madam Tse, and further referred her to the subject drug trafficking job. 

14.  Mr. Luk further informed this Court that the Defendant’s grandfather passed away when the Defendant was remanded in custody.  The Defendant is remorseful.  She has taken various courses to better equip herself whilst in custody.  Mr. Luk asked this Court to impose a lenient sentence, so that the Defendant could take care of her old-age maternal grandmother in the future. 

15.  A total of three mitigation letters respectively prepared by the Defendant, the Defendant’s mother, and a social worker were submitted to urge for leniency.  On 11^th February 2026, another mitigation letter written by Father John Wotherspoon, together with the authority of HKSAR v Abbas [2018] 5 HKLRD 88 as cited in the letter, was also submitted to this Court.  I have considered the mitigation letters and the authority. 

SENTENCING

16.  Conspiracy to traffick in a dangerous drug is a very serious offence.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment is the same as that of trafficking in dangerous drugs, which is life imprisonment and a fine of HK$ 5 million. 

17.  The sentencing principles in respect of conspiracy to traffick in dangerous drugs are provided in HKSAR v Chan Kam Loi (unreported CACC 410/2012, 30 January 2014), which was followed in HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing [2017] 5 HKLRD 799.  Quantity of the drugs is not the only matter relevant to the assessment of gravity, but it provides the court with a ready means of identifying an appropriate starting point: see Chan Kam Loi at paragraph 100.  As set out in the Summary of Facts which were admitted by the Defendant in this case, the Defendant had conspired to traffick 4,998 grammes of cocaine.  I will adopt the relevant guidelines for trafficking of cocaine in my consideration of the appropriate sentence. 

18.  I have carefully considered the nature and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, the facts of the case, the personal background of the Defendant, the mitigation advanced by Mr. Luk, and the approach to sentencing those who traffick in dangerous drugs.  With the principle modified by the Court of Appeal in the recent authority, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho CACC 130/2019 [2024] HKCA 150, I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. 

Step One: Trafficking Guideline

19.  The first step is to assess the gravity and identify the relevant guideline according to the nature and the quantity of the drug involved.  The sentencing guideline for cocaine is set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.  The present case concerns 4,998 grammes of cocaine, which falls into the revised guideline band of 1,500 to 5,000 grammes, with a starting point of 20 to 24 years of imprisonment. 

Step Two: The Defendant’s role and Culpability

20.  The second step is to assess the Defendant’s role and culpability.  In Lee Ming Ho, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the international element should generally be considered as one of the relevant factors when assessing the role and culpability of the Defendant in identifying the appropriate starting point for sentence. 

21.  As set out in the Summary of Facts, as well as accepted by Mr. Luk, the Defendant was essentially a middleman, introducing Madam Tse to Ben and subsequently to the job of bringing illicit drugs from overseas into Hong Kong.  She had multiple phone calls with Madam Tse during Madam Tse’s stay in Dubai.  It was the Defendant who asked her to collect the two suitcases outside the hotel in Dubai.  There is clearly an international element.  If the drugs trafficked by Madam Tse were successfully brought into the local drug market in Hong Kong, substantial harm would be imposed to the community.  The Defendant actively participated in the conspiracy and was clearly an essential link in the international trafficking chain.  Therefore, the culpability of the Defendant is quite high.

Step Three: Starting Point

22.  As to step three, this Court should identify where in the guideline band of 20 to 24 years should the Defendant’s case belong.  On a purely arithmetical calculation, the notional starting point after trial would be 23 years and 11 months (i.e. 287 months) of imprisonment. 

23.  In Herry Jane Yusuph, it is recognised by the Court of Appeal that the sentencing court might go outside the guideline band given the unique circumstances of the case.  Having considered the Defendant’s culpability as discussed, I am of the view that it is necessary to go beyond the 24-year-ceiling of the guideline band.  I would adopt 25 years and 8 months (i.e. 308 months) of imprisonment as the notional starting point. 

Step Four: Aggravating Factors and Step Five: Mitigating Factors

24.  There are no additional aggravating factors or mitigating factors in this case. 

Step Six: Overall Sentence

25.  In view of the Defendant’s indication of her guilty plea on the first day of her trial, and in accordance with the case of HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1, the appropriate discount for her guilty plea would be 20 per cent.  After the discount, the sentence is reduced to 20 years and 6 months’ (i.e. 246 months) imprisonment. 

26.  The Court does not take any pleasure in sentencing a young person with a hitherto clear record to a lengthy period of imprisonment but offences related to trafficking in dangerous drugs are meant to be punished severely. And that has always been the case. 

ORDER

27.  Accordingly, the Defendant is sentenced to 20 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.