HKSAR v. SAE-LAO WICHAN AND ANOTHER

HCCC 123/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 123 OF 2025

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendants pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs before a magistrate and were committed for sentence. The defendants are Thai nationals.

On 24 August 2023, when the defendants arrived at Hong Kong International Airport by a flight from Bangkok, the defendants were stopped by Customs for a clearance check. Upon search, the suitcases they carried were each found to have contained 37 nylon mats, and suspected drugs were found inside the mats after they were cut open. Subsequent examination confirmed that the suspected drugs were in total 22.291 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride.

The defendants later admitted that they owed debts to others and agreed to carry the drugs to Hong Kong for rewards in order to repay the debts and support their children. They were asked by a person in Bangkok to bring the drugs to Hong Kong. According to the 2nd defendant, the 1st defendant was her boyfriend.

With the consent of the defendants, a controlled delivery operation was conducted, but it was not successful after a few rounds of communication with the suspected handling person. The defendants had been cooperative in the operation, but the targeted person was apparently alerted by the circumstances after a video call with the defendants.

The 1st defendant is now 44 years old. He was divorced and has the sole responsibility to take care of three children aged 6, 10 and 11. They are now taken care of by the 1st defendant’s parents who are 68 and 70 years old.

The 1st defendant has no criminal record in Hong Kong. In mitigation, Mr Sherry submitted that the defendant had a stable work history prior to offending. He has been working in different countries as a labourer throughout the years.

The 1st defendant was encouraged to come to Hong Kong with the 2nd defendant after being offered 100,000 Thai baht and a free trip. He believed that the stamps on his passport for the trip can demonstrate he is a reliable traveller to facilitate him to apply to work in Korea. He now regrets what he has done and acknowledges the seriousness of the offence. He had participated in Father Wotherspoon’s anti‑trafficking campaign to help Thai nationals not to repeat his foolish deeds.

The 2nd defendant is now 37 years old. She has a clear record in Hong Kong. She was admitted to a university in Thailand, but she did not finish the degree as she was pregnant. She incurred heavy loans for her education and struggled with it throughout her life. She is supporting five children out of different relationships aged from 3 to 15 years old. They are all attending school and now under the care of a missionary.

In mitigation, Ms Mohamed submitted that the 2nd defendant committed the offence as she was struggling to make ends meet and to look after her children. Her friend promised her 100,000 Thai baht as a reward for bringing the drugs to Hong Kong. She is now very remorseful and has participated in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign to fight drug trafficking. Ms Mohamed submitted various letters from the 2nd defendant, her sisters, brother, children, and charitable organisations showing their care to the 2nd defendant and that the 2nd defendant is now very remorseful. They all asked for a lenient sentence from the court.

As submitted by counsel, in considering the appropriate sentence for trafficking in heroin, this court has to follow the six-step approach as set out in the judgement of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, and to consider the bands of sentence in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138. The total quantity of heroin involved in the present case is 22.291 kilogrammes. Under Huang Ruifang, the starting point for trafficking in heroin for 15 kilogrammes to 30 kilogrammes should be in the range of 27 to 30 years’ imprisonment.

The defendants are international couriers. Although international element itself is not a separate aggravating factor, the court will take this into account when considering the role played by the defendants in deciding the proper starting point within the tariff. On the other hand, I accept counsel’s submission that, apart from the above, the defendants’ roles can be regarded as couriers.

Both counsel submitted that the starting point should be 28 years and 5 months, with an upward adjustment of 17 months for the international element. I agree. I also agree with counsel that the defendants had been fully cooperative and helpful in the controlled delivery operation. Taking into account the defendants’ guilty plea, the sentence should be reduced to 19 years 10 months’ imprisonment.

The defendants were cooperative in performing the controlled delivery operation and participated in Father John’s campaign to fight drug trafficking. For these reasons, I give a further reduction of 8 months and 2 months respectively.

The defendants are therefore both sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment.