HKSAR v. TAPE DIMI LEA

HCCC 138/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 138 OF 2025

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug on 14 April 2025, and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today, she confirms her plea and admission of the Summary of Facts.

She has pleaded guilty to unlawfully trafficking in 1,226 grammes of a solid containing 1,023.6 grammes of cocaine. This was on 23 November 2023, at Customs Arrival Hall A, Passenger Terminal Building, Hong Kong International Airport, Chek Lap Kok.

The defendant is an Ivory Coast national who arrived in Hong Kong on 23 November 2023, from the Ivory Coast via Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. She was intercepted at Customs Arrival Hall A for customs clearance, and when a body search was conducted, a piece of plastic was found protruding from her private parts. She was escorted to North Lantau Hospital after she discharged a pellet of cocaine inside the toilet of the Customs and Excise offices. Later, she discharged many more pellets of cocaine over four days. She was arrested and cautioned and admitted it was cocaine in the pellets concealed in her body.

In total, she discharged 68 pellets which were found to contain a total of 1,226 grammes of a solid containing 1,023.6 grammes of cocaine. The estimated street value was approximately HK$1,228,452.

She now admits trafficking in a dangerous drug by importing them into Hong Kong.

Mitigation

The defendant is now 47 years old and at home, she is a single parent with three children aged between 16 and 3 years old. The defendant used to sell clothes for a living, earning approximately HK$2,584 each month. She is suffering from diabetes, eye problems, high blood pressure, and skin issues.

In mitigation, I have heard that she was in financial difficulty raising three children on her own and committed this offence thinking she could earn some money. The defendant says that her children are now homeless and begging for food and survival. I have seen a letter translated from her eldest child to the defendant who is sadly struggling to survive on her own.

Today, I have a letter from the defendant herself. As sad and horrific that it is, if true which I’m sure it is, the defendant left them knowing she was going overseas to import drugs, commit a crime, and there was a risk she would leave them to their own devices if arrested. Her children are victims, but their situation is not mitigation to which I can attach much weight.

Mr Hui has said all he can possibly say on behalf of the defendant in mitigation.

Sentencing

I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the most recent authority HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

Those six steps include assessing the gravity of the offence and applicable guideline, identifying the defendant’s role, where within the guideline the defendant should lie, any aggravating factors, any mitigating factors, and lastly, passing a sentence which is fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guideline according to the drug seized. Taking into account the latest guideline in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, the starting point for trafficking in cocaine between 500 and 1,500 grammes is 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment.

Mathematically, the defendant trafficking in 1,023.6 grammes of cocaine attracts a starting point of 18 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.

I am satisfied that the role of the defendant in this case was that of a courier. That is the position at the bottom of the hierarchy of drug traffickers, therefore the mathematical starting point applies. I take a starting point of 18 years’ imprisonment.

The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors. The defendant’s culpability is increased or aggravated by the fact she imported a significant quantity of cocaine into Hong Kong. Bringing drugs across the border from overseas will attract an enhancement in a starting point. I do differentiate the defendant from a Hong Konger leaving Hong Kong to collect drugs to bring back into Hong Kong. Considering the quantity of narcotics, I increase that starting point by 18 months to 19 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount. After that discount is applied, the defendant is sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment.

With the last step in mind, I consider this sentence to be substantial, but fair, just, and balanced in light of the circumstances of the offence as well as the defendant. I will deduct 2 months as a result of reading Father Wotherspoon’s letter.

Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 12 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.