COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to a count of trafficking in dangerous drugs before the Magistracy on 12 January, this year.
The charge avers that on 14 January 2025, at Room 302, Flat A, 3rd Floor, Hoi To Court, No. 275 Gloucester Road, Causeway Bay, in Hong Kong, she unlawfully trafficked in 30.227 kilogrammes of a crystalline a solid containing 29.987 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 2.30 kilogrammes of a liquid containing 1.01 kilogrammes of methamphetamine, namely, ‘Ice’.
The premises, the subject of the charge, was a room in a guesthouse called “Hostel HK”.
The facts giving rise to the offence are these.
At around 1 pm on 14 January 2025, Customs and Excise officers spotted the defendant lingering about and behaving furtively at an alley between two buildings on Nos. 264-275 Gloucester Road, Causeway Bay. The officers kept the
defendant under observation and saw another man appearing from the other end of the alley. That man met the defendant and the defendant was seen passing a white object wrapped in
a transparent plastic packet taken out from her sling bag to that man.
The defendant then proceeded towards Gloucester Road and the officers followed her. The Customs officers then saw the defendant entering Room 302 of the guesthouse, Hostel HK.
At about 5.55 pm of the same day, the officers arrived at Flat A of Room 302 and gained entry into the room, the door was answered by the defendant. Upon search of the room, the officers found four suitcases next to the bed inside the room. Two of the suitcases were locked with passcodes, whilst the other two were not locked.
Upon enquiry, the defendant provided the passcodes of the two locked suitcases to the officers. In the presence of the defendant, the Customs officers opened all four suitcases. In the first suitcase, there were found nine plastic bags containing crystalline solids. In the second suitcase, two plastic bags containing crystalline solids and one plastic bag containing a liquid were found. In the third suitcase, one electronic scale, one spoon and a quantity of resealable plastic bags were found.
The defendant was arrested by the officers for trafficking in dangerous drugs. Under caution, she admitted that she knew that the items found in the first and the second suitcases were bad things and said that they belonged to another person who had instructed her to deliver those items to others. She further admitted that she would receive a sum of MYR10,000 upon successful delivery.
The officer seized from the defendant a key card, cash HK$800 and two mobile phones. The key card seized from the defendant was confirmed to be that to the door to Room 302.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview conducted the following day, the defendant told the officers under caution that she was a Malaysian and that she came to Hong Kong on 21 December 2024, planning to depart on 18 January 2025.
The operator of Hostel HK, Mr Huang, confirmed that the defendant was the one who made an online booking at that guesthouse from 25 December 2024 to, initially, 29 December 2024. The booking was later extended up to 16 January 2025. The defendant had specifically asked Mr Huang and the other guesthouse staff not to enter her room.
As at January 2025, the estimated street value of the drugs was about HK$15.6 million.
The defendant accepts that at all material times she knowingly possessed all of the dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
Defendant’s Background
Defendant is now 36 years of age. She is a Malaysian and she came to Hong Kong as a tourist. She has no previous criminal conviction in Hong Kong. It is said that she has received up to Secondary 4 education and I am told that at the time of her arrest, she worked as a tattoo artist in Malaysia and earned an income of MYR2,000 to 3,000 a month.
The defendant is divorced. She has four children aged between 6 and 17. All four children were dependent on her before her arrest. They are students. The defendant’s children are now taken care of by the grandmother, who is now aged 77. I am also told that both the defendant and all her four children suffer from asthma, which appears to be a family disease.
I have also received mitigation letters submitted by the defendant and those on her behalf, which I have read and taken into account. In mitigation, Ms Chong, counsel on behalf of the defendant, confirmed that the defendant came to Hong Kong on 21 December 2024 as a tourist and planned to depart on 18 January 2025. It is submitted that insofar as her role in the trafficking activities is concerned, the defendant was simply a courier or storekeeper at the bottom of the trafficking hierarchy.
Counsel further urged me to consider applying the revised lower guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138. Ms Chong cited HKSAR v Tsoi Shu and Others, CACC 461/2003, in support of her contention in this regard. I am prepared to accept that the revised lower tariff as set out in Huang Ruifang can be applied in this case in light of the circumstances of the defendant and her involvement in the drug trafficking offence in question.
Also in mitigation this morning, Ms Chong submitted a letter dated 2 May 2026 written by Father John Wotherspoon, mentioning the participation by the defendant in the campaign run by Father Wotherspoon. It is stated in the letter that the defendant has helped the campaign by agreeing for her story to be made public and allowing Father Wotherspoon to make a YouTube video about herself as a warning, especially to people in Malaysia, not to get involved in drug trafficking in Hong Kong.
Attached to the letter of Father Wotherspoon are pamphlets of the campaign as well as a letter from the Council for
Labour Affairs of Indonesia, attention to “Head of Voice [of] (sic) Prisoners”, an NGO founded by Father Wotherspoon.
There is also a screen capture of what appeared to be a YouTube video with a caption stating that “1 May 2026: Story of Chinese woman from Malaysia, a mother of four, in Hong Kong prison for drug trafficking”.
These materials purport to show that Ms Leong, the defendant, has made some efforts in her participation in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign. As discussed with Ms Chong, counsel on behalf of the defendant, this morning, the court expressed concern as to the late submission of Father Wotherspoon’s letter, with the annexures therein, and in any event, these are matters that the executive would be better placed in due course to consider if any reduction of sentence is warranted in view of the efforts made by the defendant in her participation in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign, as the letter appears to show. Ms Chong expressed her agreement in court today that this would be an appropriate approach. In these circumstances, I would refrain from giving any reduction in sentence. In due course, the defendant would obviously be advised to make the necessary step for her efforts in her participation in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign to be taken into account by way of a petition to the executive.
Turning to the sentence that I shall pass on the defendant, I do bear in mind the six-step approach laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as complemented by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
The first step is to identify the appropriate sentencing band or bracket applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. The narcotic content in this case was 30.997 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’ in total. According to the tariff as set out in Huang Ruifang, the sentence for such quantity of ‘Ice’ above 30 kilogrammes will fall within the discretion of the sentencing judge. The sentencing band immediately below such a quantity would be 27 to 30 years’ imprisonment for 15 kilogrammes to 30 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’.
Having considered the circumstances of this case and taking into account the quantity of the drugs in question, which was slightly over 30 kilogrammes, I consider that the overall starting point of 30 years would be appropriate in the present case.
The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence before the court. The assessment should be based upon the evidence before the
court, whether by admission or by direct or circumstantial evidence.
On the basis of the facts as admitted by the defendant, I am prepared to accept that the defendant was acting as a courier or storekeeper of the dangerous drugs. That leads to the third step, which is to identify where in the relevant band of sentence guidelines the defendant comes.
In light of my acceptance of the role of the defendant as one at the lowest rank of the trafficking hierarchy, I consider that a total sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment would be the appropriate overall notional sentence after trial for the offence in question notwithstanding that the quantity of drugs involved exceeds 30 kilogrammes slightly.
The fourth step requires the court to consider whether there are aggravating factors which bear on the notional sentence after trial. Although the defendant came to Hong Kong as a tourist, and for a short period of time; making arrangements at the guesthouse, and was found to be involved in drug trafficking activities within her short stay in Hong Kong, I am prepared not to aggravate her sentence on that count and I accept that there is no basis for an upward adjustment of sentence in this case for the fact that she came as a visitor and was involved in drug trafficking activities in Hong Kong.
The fifth step requires an assessment by the court of the presence or otherwise of any mitigation or mitigating factor. As the Court of Appeal has said in Herry Jane Yusuph, personal circumstances will count for little unless they are exceptional.
Whilst the court has sympathy on the defendant’s family, especially her four children, young children who are now being taken care of by the grandmother in Malaysia and the chronic illness that they as well as the defendant are suffering-that all of them have asthma problem,the court finds that the only mitigating factor in this case is her timely plea of guilty. For that the court is prepared to give her the full one-third discount. Accordingly, the defendant’s overall sentence is reduced to 20 years’ imprisonment after discount for plea.
The final step requires the court to stand back to look at the overall sentence. I consider that the overall sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment is a fair, just, and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the offence as well as those of the defendant.
Accordingly, defendant, I sentence you to a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.