HKSAR v. BARBA CAMACHO NIXON

HCCC 243/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3741

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 243 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.  The Defendant, BARBA CAMACHO NIXON (“D”), pleaded guilty before this Court to one count of Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The particulars are that on 24 October 2023, at Customs Arrival Hall A, Passenger Terminal 1, Hong Kong International Airport, he unlawfully trafficked in 1.12 kilogrammes of a solid containing 948 grammes of cocaine.

2.  I have considered the admitted Summary of Facts, the mitigation submissions filed on D’s behalf (including the written mitigation dated 25 June 2026), and the relevant authorities submitted by both parties.  In determining the appropriate sentence, I adopt the structured six-step approach set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as elaborated in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3.  It is necessary to set out the procedural history of this case, as it is relevant to the discount to which D is entitled for his guilty plea.

4.  D was charged and the case was committed to the High Court for trial on 21 July 2025.  D initially pleaded not guilty to the charge.  The case was set down for trial by the Listing Judge in August 2027.

5.  Originally, on 12 September 2024, D first indicated to the court that he wished to plead guilty.

6.  On 12 May 2025, D was expected to plead guilty, but after a late change of instructions, the hearing was adjourned to 26 May 2025 for the court to obtain reports on D’s fitness to plead.

7.  The reports concluded that D was fit to plead.  On 21 July 2025, D pleaded not guilty to trafficking.  

8.  On 4 May 2026, the court was formally informed by D’s legal representative that he now wished to plead guilty.

9.  D finally pleaded guilty before this Court this morning and admitted the Summary of Facts and is convicted as charged.

THE FACTS

10.  At around 2:48 pm on 24 October 2023, D arrived at Hong Kong International Airport from São Paulo, Brazil, via Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

11.  At around 2:52 pm, D was walking through the Green Channel at Customs Arrival Hall A when he was intercepted.  His personal belongings were examined with X-ray with nil result.  A personal search was conducted, and no contraband was found on him.

12.  At around 4:30 pm, D was escorted to North Lantau Hospital for medical examination.  The medical examination confirmed that there were foreign objects hidden in his body cavity.  D was arrested under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and cautioned in English.  D admitted that he had swallowed 95 pieces of cocaine in Brazil and that someone would collect them from him at a hotel.  He would receive US$5,000 as a reward.

13.  At around 5:35 pm, D discharged 18 pellets.  He was again cautioned and admitted that the pellets were cocaine.

14.  At around 6:15 pm, D discharged 7 more pellets.

15.  At about 7:00 pm, D was escorted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital, where he discharged a total of 70 pellets.

16.  In summary, D discharged a total of 95 pellets.  The Government Chemist confirmed that the 95 pellets contained 1.12 kg of a solid containing 948 g of cocaine.

17.  At around 11:30 am on 25 October 2023, D’s admission was post-recorded with the assistance of a Spanish/English interpreter, and D confirmed the contents.

18.  In October 2023, the average retail price of cocaine was HK$940,416.

19.  D now admits that at the material time, he unlawfully trafficked the cocaine found in his body by importing it into Hong Kong.

THE ANTECEDENTS OF THE DEFENDANT

20.  D is a Bolivian male, born on 24 January 1973.  He is now 53 years of age.  He has no criminal record in Hong Kong.  

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

21.  I have carefully considered the mitigation submissions filed on behalf of D dated 25 June 2026.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

22.  As said, D is a 53-year-old Bolivian passport holder.  He had been living with his wife and children in Mozambique, where he was a self-employed dental prosthetist.  He had to return to Bolivia for renewal of his passport.  He then flew from Brazil via Addis Ababa to Hong Kong, arriving on 24 October 2023.

23.  D was in good physical and mental health when he arrived in Hong Kong.  However, according to instructions, since suffering a bad fall in custody in February 2024, D has had physical and mental problems.  He spent almost 3 weeks in hospital, required a wheelchair for 15 months, and now walks with a stick.  He attributes his mental problems, for which he has spent three months in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, to the medication he was given.  He is now mentally stable but suffers anxiety.  He takes medication for his heart and for blood clots.

THE OFFENCE

24.  D’s remorse is indicated by his guilty plea.  His counsel, Mr. Andrew Bullett submits that but for D’s accident and the effects of medication, D would not have entered a not guilty plea.  In the circumstances, the Court is asked to consider granting D a discount for plea of at least 25%.

25.  I have taken all of these matters into account.  The guilty plea and the Defendant’s personal circumstances, including his health issues, are mitigating factors.  However, these must be weighed against the very serious nature of the offence, the substantial quantity of drugs involved (948g of cocaine), and the fact that the plea was entered late in the proceedings.

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS

26.  Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence.  The Court of Appeal has established the six-step sentencing approach in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.  I shall apply that approach.

Step 1: Identify the Relevant Guideline Band

27.  The quantity of cocaine involved is 948 grammes.

28.  For cocaine, the applicable guideline is HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138. The tariffs are as follows:

Quantity	Starting Point
Up to 10g	2 to 5 years
10 – 50g	5 to 8 years
50 – 200g	8 to 12 years
200 – 500g	12 to 16 years
500 – 1,500g	16 to 20 years
1,500 – 5,000g	20 to 24 years
5,000 – 15,000g	24 to 27 years
15,000 – 30,000g	27 to 30 years
Above 30,000g	Discretionary

29.  The quantity of 948g of cocaine falls within the 500 to 1,500 grammes band, which carries a starting point range of 16 to 20 years.

30.  Applying a linear interpolation between 500g (16 years)  and 1,500g (20 years), a quantity of 948g attracts a starting point of approximately 17 years and 9 months (17.79 years).

Step 2: Assess the Defendant’s Role and Culpability

31.  D admitted under caution that he had swallowed 95 pieces of cocaine in Brazil and that he would receive US$5,000 as a reward.  He was acting as a courier – swallowing the drugs and importing them into Hong Kong for delivery to others.

32.  In HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, the Court of Appeal held that the international element, which used to be regarded as an aggravating factor, should now be regarded as a matter going to the role and culpability of the offender.

33.  In HKSAR v Raman Kapusamy [2024] 2 HKLRD 955, the Court of Appeal observed:

“60. … the international element is itself capable of taking a number of different forms and may not, therefore, lend itself to a standard or uniform enhancement. The most common example to come before the courts is the courier who, for a fee or reward, crosses the border with dangerous drugs secreted in or on their person or in their luggage.”

34.  D is precisely such a courier – a foreign national who arrived in Hong Kong with drugs concealed inside his body, crossing international borders for a reward.

35.  However, D is a 53-year-old man.  He cannot be said to be a naive young person who did not understand the consequences of his actions.  He knowingly ingested 95 pellets of cocaine, travelled across continents, and attempted to import nearly one kilogramme of cocaine into Hong Kong.  I do not accept that he was unaware of the severe consequences of drug trafficking.  Many jurisdictions in this part of the world even impose death penalties and Hong Kong is well known for its stringent penalties for drug trafficking.

Step 3: Identify the Starting Point within the Band

36.  The starting point of 17 years and 9 months (17.79 years)  is for a domestic trafficking offence.  For a cross-border courier case, an enhancement is required to reflect the international element.

37.  In Raman Kapusamy (supra.), the Court of Appeal upheld an enhancement of 2 years for the international element where the courier carried more than one kilogramme of narcotics across the border.

38.  In the present case, D transported 948g of cocaine.  This is a substantial quantity.  The international element is significant.

39.  Taking into account D’s role as a courier, the international element, and the substantial quantity of drugs, I consider that the appropriate enhancement is 18 months.  This is consistent with the approach in Lee Ming Ho and Raman Kapusamy, and reflects the fact that D is not a young, naive first-time traveller, but a mature 53-year-old man who made a calculated decision to take the risk.

40.  The enhanced starting point is therefore:

•  17 years 9 months + 18 months = 19 years 3 months

Step 4: Consider Aggravating Factors for Enhancement

41.  I have considered whether any further aggravating factors exist.  I find none.  D has no previous convictions.  He did not involve others in the commission of the offence beyond the courier role.  There is no evidence of any additional aggravating features.

Step 5: Consider Mitigating Factors for Discount

42.  I now consider all mitigating factors to determine the appropriate discount from the notional starting point.

(i)  Guilty Plea – D has pleaded guilty. However, the timing of the plea is a critical factor. The case was already set down for trial to be held in August 2027. It is true that D first indicated a wish to plead guilty as early as 12 September 2024 but he later changed his instructions and pleaded not guilty on 21 July 2025. D later wrote a letter indicating his intention to plead guilty. The Court then referred the letter to D’s legal representatives to take further instruction and was eventually informed only on 4 May 2026 that D now wished to plead guilty.

(ii)  Discount for Late Plea – The principles governing the discount for a guilty plea are set out in NGO Van-nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1. The Court of Appeal laid down the following guidelines:

Stage of Plea	Discount
Indication at first appearance or at earliest opportunity	Up to 1/3 (33.3%)
After committal but before trial date fixed	Up to 25%
After trial date fixed but before 1st day of trial	25% to 20%
On 1st day of trial	20%
During trial	Less than 20%

(iii)  Personal Mitigation – D’s personal circumstances, including his fall in custody, his physical and mental health issues, his clear record, and his remorse, have been considered. However, personal circumstances generally count for little in serious drug trafficking cases (Herry Jane Yusuph at §73). I have taken them into account, but they do not warrant a further discount beyond the plea discount.

43.  In the present case, the case has already been set down for trial in August 2027.  The Court was only formally informed on 4 May 2026 that D wished now to plead guilty.  Under NGO Van-nam, the appropriate discount for a plea indicated after trial dates have been fixed but before the first day of trial lies between 25% and 20%.

44.  Mr. Bullett submits that but for D’s falling accident and the effects of medication, D would not have entered a not guilty plea, and the Court is urged to consider granting a discount of at least 25%.  However, I note that D maintained a not guilty plea even after the fitness reports concluded he was fit to plead (on 21 July 2025).  The fact remains that this case was already set down for trial.  The plea was not indicated to the court until 4 May 2026, which is some 9 months after D pleaded not guilty in the Magistrates’ Court and after trial dates were fixed.

45.  In these circumstances, I consider that the appropriate discount is at the lower end of the 25% to 20% range.  The plea was not at the earliest opportunity.  The case has already been set down for trial.  The prosecution and the court have expended resources preparing for trial.  D has the benefit of a plea, but it is a late plea.

46.  In the end, I apply a discount of 22% to the enhanced starting point.

47.  Applying a 22% discount to the enhanced starting point of 19 years 3 months (231 months):

•  231 months × 22% = 50.82 months

•  231– 51 months = 180 months (15 years)

Step 6: Apply the Totality Principle and Finalise Sentence

48.  Based on the above, the sentence derived from the preceding steps is 15 years’ imprisonment.

49.  I must stand back and ensure this sentence is fair, just, and proportionate to D’s overall criminality (Herry Jane Yusuph at §79).  The sentence reflects the gravity of trafficking in a substantial quantity of cocaine (948g)  across international borders.  It is adequately deterrent and punitive.  It also reflects the late plea and D’s personal circumstances.

50.  The sentence is not crushing nor disproportionate.  It properly reflects the seriousness of the offence and D’s personal circumstances.

CONCLUSION

51.  Accordingly, D is sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for the single charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.