HKSAR v. HEW KIAT WEI

HCCC 35/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5298

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 35 OF 2025

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

Introduction

1.  Defendant faces two counts of “Trafficking in a dangerous drug”, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  He pleaded guilty before a Magistrate on 3 February 2025 and the case was committed to this Court for plea and sentence.

2.  This morning, he appeared before me for mitigation and sentence, having confirmed his plea and the admission of the summary of facts.

Facts

3.  On 28 September 2023, the defendant was intercepted by Customs officers outside the Empire Hotel Hong Kong.  A search of a shopping bag he was carrying revealed four packets containing a total of 4 kg of a solid with 3,277 grammes of cocaine.

4.  The defendant was then escorted to Room 1813 of the same hotel for further investigation.  A blue suitcase was found near the bed which the Defendant said was belonged to him.  Inside the suitcase, Customs officers found 30 packets containing a total of 1,007 grammes of a solid with 822 grammes of cocaine.

5.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that he believed the items were illegal substances and might be dangerous drugs.  He stated he had collected them from someone and was waiting for instructions to deliver them elsewhere.  He was to receive a reward of MLY$10,000 (approx. HK$18,000), plus a free trip (flight and accommodation) to Hong Kong.

6.  Immigration records showed this was the defendant’s first visit to Hong Kong, having arrived on 14 September 2023.  Hotel records confirmed his check-in on the same day.  Airline records showed he travelled from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, with no check-in baggage.

Background and Mitigation

7.  Defendant is 43 years old, Malaysian, divorced, and has two children aged 16 and 19.  He has parents and a younger brother in Malaysia.  He attained Form 2 education and worked as a decoration worker.  He has no previous criminal record in Hong Kong.

8.  In mitigation, Mr. Anthony Yuen, Counsel for the defendant, informs me that the defendant committed the offences due to financial hardship after being lured by an old classmate.  He was promised a reward and a free trip to Hong Kong solely to collect and deliver goods within the city.

9.  Mr. Yuen emphasizes the defendant's timely guilty plea, his deep remorse, and his participation in an anti-drug campaign during detention.  He also highlights that the defendant received no reward and even paid for his hotel stay.  A mitigation letter from the defendant and a testimonial from Father John Wotherspoon were submitted.

Sentencing Considerations

10.  It is well established that trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence. I have considered the six-step approach to sentencing set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and the revised sentencing guideline for cocaine in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234.

First Step: Identifying the relevant guideline band

11.  Applying the guideline in Huang Ruifang, trafficking in 1,500 to 5,000 grammes of cocaine attracts a starting point of 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment.  The total cocaine involved in this case is 4,099 grammes.  Mathematically, this quantity attracts a starting point of 23 years’ imprisonment.

Second Step: Defendant’s Role and Culpability

12.  The defendant acted as a courier who came to Hong Kong to collect and deliver drugs within the city.  I have considered the principles regarding the international element discussed in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150 and HKSAR v Raman Kapusamy [2024] 2 HKLRD 955.

13.  While the defendant is a foreigner who came to Hong Kong to commit the crime, his role was limited to internal collection and delivery.  He did not transport the drugs across the border concealed on his person or in his luggage.  His culpability is akin to a local courier, albeit one recruited from abroad.  In these circumstances, I find no compelling reason to enhance the starting point specifically for the cross-border trafficking beyond what is already reflected in the quantity-based starting point.  However, I still need to take into account that he came to Hong Kong to commit crime.  The fact remains that visitors to Hong Kong should be firmly deterred from turning to serious crime when they come here, whether they run out of money or not.  For this reason, and also taking into account the already lengthy sentence he is going to serve, his sentence would still need to be enhanced by 6 months.

Third Step: Placement within the Guideline Band

14.  The quantity of 4,099 grammes places this case in the upper-middle range of the “1,500-5,000g” band.  A starting point of 23 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.

Fourth Step: Aggravating Factors

15.  I find no further aggravating factors beyond those inherent in the offence and the quantity involved.

Fifth Step: Mitigating Factors

16.  The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, for which he will receive the full one-third discount.  I have also taken into account his clear record, expression of remorse, and the fact that his family will have to move on without his presence and support for a considerable period of time.  However, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that personal and family circumstances carry little weight in serious drug trafficking cases.  I have no sympathy for him as he must have realised that his family would suffer if he came to Hong Kong and was imprisoned for committing serious crimes.  Lastly, because of the defendant’s participation in rehabilitative activities in custody including the anti-drug campaign led by Fr. John Wotherspoon, I shall exercise my discretion and reduce his starting point by 3 months. 

Sixth Step: Totality and Overall Fairness

17.  After the enhancement and deduction as stated, the proper starting point before the one-third deduction is 23 years and 3 months.  Although there are two charges, they arise from a single transaction and the sentence should be concurrent with each other.  Applying the one-third discount to the starting point of 23 years and 3 months results in a sentence of 15 years and 6 months' imprisonment.  The final sentence of 15 years and 6 months is of course harsh to the defendant but in light of the seriousness of the offence and his role and culpability, the sentence I imposed is only just and balanced to the offence as well as to the defendant.

Order

18.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 15 years and 6 months' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently.