COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug before a magistrate on 12 December 2024. According to the Summary of Facts to which he agreed, on the morning of 7 October 2023 he arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport from Johannesburg of South Africa. He was intercepted by Customs Officers as he was walking through the Green Channel of the Customs Entrance Hall at about 7.15 am.
Medical examination confirmed that there were foreign objects hidden in his body cavity. Later, he discharged a total of 81 packets containing 782 grammes of a solid containing 654 grammes of cocaine at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
On 16 October 2023, he further discharged one packet containing 9.45 grammes of a solid containing 7.7 grammes of cocaine at the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre.
He stated under caution that he knew the substance he had discharged was cocaine and that he had swallowed 83 pellets.
The total quantity of drug involved was 791.45 grammes of a solid containing 661.7 grammes of cocaine narcotic.
The average retail price of all the cocaine involved was HK$785,118.40.
The defendant now admits and accepts that at the material time, he unlawfully trafficked in the cocaine found in his body by importing the cocaine into Hong Kong, knowing that they were indeed cocaine.
The defendant is a Zambian male. He is 33 years of age, and he does not have any criminal conviction in Hong Kong. In mitigation, counsel Mr Bullett informed me that he has a wife and four children aged between 5 and 15 years. Counsel said he also has a clear criminal record back in Zambia. He had worked as a baker but became unemployed in June 2023.
Counsel submitted that his role was simply one of a courier who was involved in the importation of the cocaine into Hong Kong. Counsel urged this court to take into account his guilty plea and his assistance to Father Wotherspoon’s anti-drug programme and impose a lenient sentence.
The defendant himself has also written a letter to this court. In his letter, the defendant said he was a baker, but after the pandemic in 2019 he lost his job. He indicated that he was led into finding easy money because of the severe poverty condition of his family. The defendant said he was truly remorseful and urged for a lenient sentence.
Counsel had also submitted a letter prepared by Father Wotherspoon dated 1 December 2024. In this letter, the Father said the defendant had given information about his recruiters in Zambia and the people who gave him the drugs in Johannesburg. He shared the information with the authorities in Hong Kong, in Africa and with a DEA friend in Hong Kong. The defendant had given the real name of a woman in Zambia.
And, in January 2024 the defendant’s wife and family members of other prisoners in Hong Kong joined a meeting with the police authorities in Zimbabwe. In that meeting, they shared information about that particular female and other recruiters.
The Father said a particular colonel in Zambia said that the information from the Hong Kong prisoners “is most useful … and being used in ongoing investigations” but no arrest had resulted.
Father Wotherspoon asked this court to give the defendant not only a three-month reduction of sentence, but also a further reduction on the basis of “useful information to the authorities”.
It is my observation that I am not sure of the number of prisoners involved in giving this so-called useful information to the colonel. On one hand I am unable to tell whether the useful information was contributed by this particular defendant or not. On the other hand I am also unable to assess the true value of the information, especially whether it would be of any benefit to Hong Kong. But the fact remains that nobody was ever arrested as a result of those information given.
Father Wotherspoon had also attached one letter which was a combination of three letters written by the defendant. In the edited letter, the defendant said that he began hanging around people who were into drugs and other bad influences, and he started using drugs and got involved in selling drugs to pay for school and to support himself and his younger siblings while he was back in Zambia. He said while he attended school in the city, people there influenced him by promising quick money and told him how easy it would be to make quick money. After he was caught and arrested, he was suffering in prison and separated from his family members. He warned others not to make the same mistakes and be cautious about trying to make quick and easy money.
Now, coming to the sentence of the defendant. In sentencing the defendant I do bear in mind the principle enunciated by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 as clarified by the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
According to the recent tariff case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HJKCA 234, trafficking between 500 and 1,500 grammes of cocaine narcotic would result in a starting point of between 16 and 20 years’ imprisonment. This case involves a total of 661.7 grammes of cocaine narcotic. Mathematically the starting point would be 16 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.
I accept counsel’s assertion that he was simply a courier, but he was also involved in the importation of drug into Hong Kong. Taking into account his overall role and culpability especially the international element, I consider that the notional starting point after trial should be one of 17 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.
Coming to the mitigating factors. In the case of HKSAR v Kilima [2018] 5 HKLRD 88, the Court of Appeal, in particular Lunn VP, stated that to determine what weight, if any, ought to have been afforded to the applicant in sentencing for participation in Father Wotherspoon’s programme is fraught with considerable difficulties. The courts are ill equipped to make enquiries to make any such determination. To do so exposes the court to the dangers of indulging in speculation. Assessing the value, if any, to Hong Kong of an applicant’s participation in Father Wotherspoon’s programme is a matter that the Executive is better equipped to perform.
Nevertheless, it lay within the judge’s discretion to afford the applicant a small additional discount in sentence to reflect this aspect of his conduct, and three months is to be regarded as the maximum discount to be afforded to an applicant in similar circumstances.
In that case, Macrae VP of the Court of Appeal also expressed his concern as to how a court can conscientiously award a discount of sentence to a prisoner who simply writes and has published on a website, or otherwise disseminates, letters to his fellow countrymen to discourage others from doing as he did. He said:
“The beneficial effect from writing such letters is far too vague and amorphous to form one of these recognised categories of mitigation.”
The Court of Appeal has said that post-sentence participation in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign is a matter best left to the Executive. Nevertheless, Macrae VP would still permit sentencing judges a discretion to allow a token discount for this factor. That assessment must be in the absolute discretion of the court, and he cannot envisage any circumstances which might warrant a deduction of more than three months for this factor.
He pointed out that the discount for this factor should be no more than a token one because one must not forget that trafficking in dangerous drugs is a crime of the utmost gravity. The court must balance public interests in sentencing and must not be too lenient.
Coming back to the present case. On the information before me I cannot confidently form the view that the defendant had contributed meaningfully to Father Wotherspoon’s programme. At most, he had written letters contributed to the simple message that hardship of life in prison was to be expected by those who trafficked dangerous drugs into Hong Kong.
I am unable to assess whether the information provided by the defendant or his family was of any practical use which could potentially assist or had actually assisted the authorities. But one thing is clear: His participation in the programme did not expose him or his family to any risk of harm, and no arrest had been resulted from the information provided.
In the circumstances, I am unable to assess any meaningful value of the information provided. I take the view that the matter should be better left for the Executive to address. It would be better for the Executive to assess the degree and the effectiveness of his contribution if he continues to participate in the programme in due course. It is for the Executive to decide in due course whether his contribution should be awarded by the use of any executive power of clemency.
So the really effective mitigating factor is his early plea of guilty which will entitle him to the full one-third discount of sentence. For that reason, his sentence is reduced to that of 11 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
I am aware that the defendant’s family – for example, his wife – was also involved in Father Wotherspoon’s programme. I consider that a small token discount can be given to encourage him and his family members’ participation in the programme in the future. As an act of mercy, I am prepared to give him a token discount of one more month, that is, to reduce the sentence to that of 11 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.
So the ultimate sentence is 11 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.