HKSAR v. GVANGSANIT WANNA AND ANOTHER

DCCC 637/2025

[2026] HKDC 1045

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 637 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  There are two defendants in the present case. Each defendant is found guilty after trial of Charge 1.

2.  In light of the verdict I have entered on that charge, there is no need for me to return a verdict on Charges 2 and 3, notwithstanding that the defendants had each pleaded guilty to the respective charges.

Facts of the Case

3.  The facts are relatively straightforward.  In short, these defendants were stopped by the C & E officers upon their arrival at Hong Kong International Airport from Bangkok.

4.  Upon search of their luggage, each defendant was found to have a little over 5 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis in their suitcases.  Both defendants admitted that they were trafficking in the cannabis found in their own suitcase but denied that they had knowledge of the cannabis found in the other’s suitcase, and on that basis the defendants denied that they were trafficking in the whole of the 10 kilogrammes of cannabis found in the two suitcases they had with them. 

5.  After considering the evidence placed before me, I have rejected the defendants’ defence, and in the reasons for verdict I have given earlier I have explained the basis for me to arrive at the conclusion.  I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat that here.  Suffice to say that these defendants were, in my judgment, clearly acting together in a joint enterprise in bringing into Hong Kong the 10 kilogrammes of cannabis. 

The Defendants’ Backgrounds

6.  Both defendants are Thai nationals, each having been born and bred in Thailand. 

7.  The 1^st defendant is 40 years old, married and has two sons, both in their early 20s.  Her husband, however, had left her years ago, leaving her with the burden of having to take care of the family.  According to her mitigations, the 1^st defendant was running a food stall but was earning barely enough to support the family.  It was one of her regular customers who, knowing about her financial predicament, lured her into bringing the cannabis into Hong Kong. 

8.  The 2^nd defendant is 46 years old, married also, and has two daughters who are respectively 16 and 26 years old.  Not unlike the 1^st defendant, the 2^nd defendant said that she was also lured into committing the present offence after her husband lost her job.  According to defence counsel, the 2^nd defendant used to work as a part-time construction worker.

Sentencing

9.  Following the approach of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, this court starts by identifying the relevant guideline bands according to the quantity of the cannabis found. In the case of cannabis, the Court of Appeal has revamped the tariffs for trafficking in HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329.  According to the revised tariffs, for trafficking in 9,000 to 15,000 grammes of cannabis, a sentence within the range of 48 to 66 months’ imprisonment is appropriate. 

10.  The next stage for the court is to assess the defendant’s role.  Now, here there can be little question that both defendants were acting as mere couriers.  As submitted by counsel for both defendants, there is nothing before the court to suggest that the defendants had a more important or sinister role to play in committing the offences.

11.  Having decided on the defendants’ role and/or culpability, I have then to decide where in the relevant band the defendants’ case should come in.  Mathematically, for trafficking in 10.03 kilogrammes of cannabis, the starting point should be around 51 months.  And this I shall take as the notional starting point. 

12.  The next step, according to Yusuph, requires me to consider if there is any aggravating factor bearing upon the latter.  In the present case, there is certainly the international element which the court has to take into account.  For this, I shall increase the starting point by 3 months, which is around 6% of the notional starting point, making a term of 54 months. 

13.  In relation to the fact that more than one defendant took part in committing the present offence, contrary to what Mr Pannu had submitted, I do think that it is an aggravating factor which could have warranted a higher starting point in an appropriate case.  However, as there does not seem to be a judicial consensus on the point, I shall accede to Mr Pannu’s submission and leave the point aside. 

14.  Moving to stage five under Yusuph.  Sofar as mitigation is concerned, there is of course the guilty pleas tendered by the defendants to Charges 2 and 3.  With this in mind, I shall follow the Court of Appeal’s approach in HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau [2002] 1 HKLRD 69 and allow a discount of around 20%.  This would have reduced the starting point sentence from 54 months to one of 43 months’ imprisonment.

15.  Having then stepped back to look at the resultant sentence, and being satisfied that the above term is fair, just and balanced in the circumstances of the case, that is the sentence I shall pass on each of the two defendants.