HKSAR v. SHE SUET YEE AND ANOTHER

HCCC 201/2024

[2025] HKCFI 2723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 201 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The 1st and 2nd defendants each pleaded guilty to one charge of “trafficking in a dangerous drug” and two charges of “conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug”; and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 20 June 2024. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, both the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant have confirmed their pleas and their admission to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of the charges are as follows: 

Charge 1

3.  On the 9th day of March 2021, in Hong Kong, together and with a person known as Ah Man, the 1st and 2nd defendants unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 3,526.1 grammes of a solid containing 2,459.5 grammes of cocaine. 

Charge 2

4.  On a day unknown between the 1st day of January 2021 and the 28th day of February 2021, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, the 1st and 2nd defendants conspired together and with a person known as Ah Man to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely cocaine.

Charge 3

5.  On a day unknown between the 1st day of March 2021 and 8th day of March 2021, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, the 1st and 2nd defendants conspired together and with a person known as Ah Man to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely ketamine.

6.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendants provides, inter alia, as follows: 

7.  At around 6.15 pm on 9 March 2021, police officers spotted that the 1st defendant and a male (the “Male”), who was holding a carton box (“Box A”) boarded a taxi bearing registration mark JX 6856 (the “Taxi”) outside Kwai Hing Industrial Building, Kwai Chung.  The police officers kept the Taxi under surveillance.

8.  At around 6.41 pm, the Taxi arrived outside On Lok Factory Building, To Kwa Wan. The Male alighted from the Taxi with Box A and put it on the ground.  Then he took another carton box (“Box B”) from the Taxi and put it beside Box A. Feeling suspicious, the police officers immediately intercepted the 1st defendant and the Male. 

9.  Upon search, besides Boxes A and B, there was a third carton box (“Box C”) at the scene.  Each of these boxes contained a number of cardboards, and each of these cardboards contained one plastic bag containing pieces of paper boards, which were soaked in cocaine.  In total there were 876 paper boards containing a total of 3,526.1 grammes of a solid containing 2,459.5 grammes of cocaine (“Cocaine”)(Charge 1).

10.  The estimated street value of the Cocaine was HK$5,502,901 (if in powder form) or HK$6,643,172 (if in crack form). 

11.  Upon further search two gas cookers, four gas cylinders, one microwave oven, one box of resealable plastic bags and one digital scale was found inside the Taxi.

Arrest of the 1st Defendant

12.  At around 7.20 pm on 9 March 2021, the 1st defendant was arrested for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

13.  Under caution upon arrest, the 1st defendant said she had received HK$5,000 for helping someone to transport the dangerous drugs and the utensils from Tsuen Wan and Kwai Chung to Room 212, On Lok Factory Building, To Kwa Wan (“To Kwa Wan Room”)(Charge 1) and there was another batch of dangerous drugs at 3rd Floor, Man Yuen Building, Jordan (Charge 3). 

14.  Investigation revealed that To Kwa Wan Room was rented by the 1st defendant. 

15.  In subsequent video-recorded interviews, the 1st defendant said under caution:

16.  (Regarding Charge 1):

(1) She received instructions from the 2nd defendant whom she had known for more than 10 years to transport drugs and cooking tools from Flat 5A, 9th Floor, Goodwill Industrial Building, Tsuen Wan (“Tsuen Wan Flat”), and Room 1519, Kwai Hing Industrial Building, Kwai Chung (“Kwai Chung Room”) to the To Kwa Wan Room.

(2) She asked the Male, who was her boyfriend, to accompany her as she was afraid that the drugs and cooking tools would be too heavy. They collected a suitcase and a recycling bag containing the cooking tools from the Tsuen Wan Flat, took the Taxi, and went to Kwai Chung. Then, she went to the Kwai Chung Room and collected three carton boxes (ie Boxes A to C) which she had placed there about two months ago. She then placed Boxes A to C onto the rear passenger seat of the Taxi and headed to On Lok Factory Building.

(3) The 1st defendant and the Male unloaded Boxes A to C from the Taxi outside On Lok Factory Building with intent to move them to the To Kwa Wan Room. Soon afterwards, they were intercepted by the police.

(4) She received HK$3,000 as a reward for the delivery.

(5) She received from the 2nd defendant the keys to the Tsuen Wan Flat, Kwai Chung Room and To Kwa Wan Room.

17.  (Regarding Charge 2):

(6) Upon instructions of the 2nd defendant, she received 15 boxes of fresh flowers at the Kwai Chung Room in February 2021. Inside the boxes, there were about 700 cardboards. She knew there were dangerous drugs inside the cardboards and put them into carton boxes.

(7) Upon further instructions of the 2nd defendant, she rented To Kwa Wan Room in February 2021.

18.  (Regarding Charge 3):

(8) In accordance with the instructions of the 2nd defendant, she received two boxes of goods from a “GoGo Van” driver a few days before her arrest. With the help of the Male, she placed the boxes in Room A, Flat 305, Man Yuen Building, Jordan (“Jordan Room”).

(9) After the delivery, she learned from the 2nd defendant that the boxes contained ketamine.

19.  On 10 March 2021, a search was conducted at the Jordan Room.  Upon search, two carton boxes (Boxes D to E) containing the following items were found inside Jordan Room (Charge 3):

Box D:

(1) One white nylon bag containing 25.1 kilogrammes of a solid containing 21.6 kilogrammes of ketamine (“Ketamine 1”).

Box E:

(2) One white nylon bag containing 15.6 kilogrammes of a solid containing 13.5 kilogrammes of ketamine (“Ketamine 2”);

(3) One transparent resealable plastic bag containing 260 grammes of a solid containing 226 grammes of ketamine (“Ketamine 3”);

(4) One plastic bag containing a plastic bowl containing 0.07 grammes of a solid containing ketamine (“Ketamine 4”);

(5) One box of transparent resealable plastic bags;

(6) One electronic scale; and

(7) One roll of nylon string.

20.  In total, Ketamine 1 to Ketamine 3 were a total of 40.96 kilogrammes of a solid containing 35.326 kilogrammes of ketamine whereas Ketamine 4 was 0.07 grammes of a solid containing ketamine.  The total estimated street value of the same was HK$22,814,759. 

21.  Under caution, the 1st defendant said that Boxes D to E (containing Ketamine 1 to 4) were the items which she delivered to Jordan Room, upon instructions of the 2nd defendant, as mentioned in her previous cautioned statement and that she only knew that they were dangerous drugs after delivery (Charge 3).

22.  The CCTV footage obtained from a Jordan Room captured the 1st defendant and the Male moving two carton boxes into the building of the Jordan Room at around 5.45 pm on 7 March 2021.

Arrest of the 2nd Defendant

23.  On 8 July 2021, the 2nd defendant was arrested for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs. 

24.  Under caution upon arrest, the 2nd defendant said that:

(1) Her boss known as Ah Man instructed her to arrange someone to deliver “coke” from Kwai Hing Industrial Building to On Lok Factory Building, so she asked the 1st defendant to transport the “coke” (Charge 1).

(2) Ah Man asked her to arrange someone to deliver “perfume” from a vehicle to Jordan Room, so she asked the 1st defendant to transport the “perfume” (Charge 3).

25.  In the video-recorded interview, the 2nd defendant said under caution that:

(1) The “coke” she mentioned in her earlier cautioned statement was cocaine (Charge 1).

(2) She helped Ah Man to deliver the cocaine because Ah Man would pay her HK$5,000 upon which she would pay the 1st defendant HK$3,000 (Charge 2).

(3) She paid HK$3,000 to the 1st defendant upon her delivery of cocaine to a premises at 15th Floor, Kwai Hing Industrial Building, Kwai Chung in the beginning of the year (Charge 2).

(4) She had been to Kwai Hing Industrial Building once because on the instruction of Ah Man, she brought tapes and carton boxes to that place. She believed the tapes and carton boxes were for containing cocaine that was packaged in paper boards.

(5) On 9 March 2021, Ah Man asked her to arrange someone to collect cooking tools from Tsuen Wan and cardboards containing dangerous drugs from Kwai Chung and then transport them to To Kwa Wan (Charge 1).

(6) She knew that the 1st defendant was in need of money, so she asked the 1st defendant to help.

(7) The “perfume” she mentioned in her earlier cautioned statement was ketamine (Charge 3).

(8) On a day in early March 2021, Ah Man instructed her to collect goods from a vehicle and transport them to Jordan Room. Thus, she arranged the 1st defendant to do so. On that day, she received HK$8,000 from Ah Man and she gave HK$5,000 of it to the 1st defendant (Charge 3).

26.  The 1st defendant’s fingerprint was found on the door of the Jordan Room.

27.  Regarding the personal background of the defendants, the 1st defendant is 30 years of age.  She was born in Hong Kong.  She came from a broken family.  She left school after finishing Secondary Form 3, and had since worked at various hair salons for her living.  She had been a user of dangerous drugs since she was 14.  At the time of her arrest, she was living with her boyfriend.

28.  The 1st defendant has two previous convictions, including two drug-related offences.  On 9 December 2016, the 1st defendant was sentenced to, respectively, 44 months’ imprisonment and 4 months’ imprisonment for the offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs and possession of dangerous drugs.

29.  The 2nd defendant is 34 years of age and single.  She completed her education up to Secondary Form 3 level and studied at the VTC from 2005 to 2007.  The 2nd defendant’s father passed away in around 2000 and in around 2005 the 2nd defendant’s mother, who was in her 50s, migrated to the United Kingdom.

30.  The 2nd defendant has previously worked as a waitress, a chef and manual labourer. Prior to her arrest, she worked as a transportation worker, earning a monthly income of $18,000.  Due to financial difficulties, the 2nd defendant made the regrettable decision to commit the offences in question.  She explained that she did not fully understand the seriousness of her acts and was unaware of the exact amount of drugs involved.

31.  The 2nd defendant has eight previous convictions, three of which are drug related. In respectively July 2012 and September 2017 the 2nd defendant was sentenced to the DATC and imprisoned for 9 weeks for the offences of possession of dangerous drugs.  On 15 September 2015, the 2nd defendant was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

32.  The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.  The first step is identify the relevant sentencing band (or bracket) applicable to the quantity of drug concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of a defendant based on the evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes.  It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant.  The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”.  The sixth and final step, is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a fair, just and balanced sentence. 

33.  I shall adopt a similar “six-step” approach in arriving at the appropriate sentences for the three charges in the present case.

34.  Regarding step 1, that involves the identification of the appropriate initial sentencing range applicable to the nature and the quantity of drugs involved, before considering the role and culpability of the defendants under step 2.

35.  As for Charge 1, for 2,459.5 grammes of cocaine, the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment: See HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234 at paragraph 62.

36.  As for Charge 2, the amount of cocaine involved has not been expressly particularised, however in HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing [2017] 5 HKLRD 799 at paragraph 33, Macrae JA (as he then was) said this:

“33. As the court in Chan Kam Loi explained, where a conspiracy to traffic in an unspecified quantity of dangerous drugs is concerned, the sentencing court must do its best to arrive at a starting point based on inferences and assumptions properly derived from the particular facts in the case. Those facts, and the inferences and assumptions from which they derive, will vary from case to case. We would add that, unless the facts which give rise to the inferences and assumptions are clear-cut, they will inevitably lean in favour of the defence.”

37.  In the present case, I accept the submissions by the defence that from the Summary of Facts admitted by the defendants, as detailed above, the quantity of the cocaine conspired to be trafficked under Charge 2 is the same batch of drugs particularised under Charge 1 (ie cardboards containing the cocaine were received at the Kwai Chung Room (Charge 2), then subsequently to be transported to the To Kwa Wan Room (Charge 1)).

38.  This conclusion has two consequences.  First, the same guideline tariff band of 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment is applicable to Charge 2.  Second, it would be appropriate to order the sentences on Charge 1 and Charge 2 to run concurrently.  This will be dealt with at step 6 below.

39.  As for Charge 3, it involves the transportation of the ketamine to, and the storage of the same at the Jordan Room.  The total amount of ketamine involved is 35.326 kilogrammes.

40.  The sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine are set out in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, indicating that trafficking over 1,000 grammes attract a starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment.

41.  In HKSAR v Chan Ka Yiu [2018] 4 HKC 591, the Court of Appeal held that for trafficking in 2,000 grammes of ketamine narcotic, the starting point should be no less than 18 years’ imprisonment, while for trafficking in 3,000 grammes, the starting point should be no less than 20 years’ imprisonment.  If more than 3,000 grammes of ketamine narcotic was involved, the starting point could exceed 20 years, although the increase in sentence should not be proportional to the increase in the drug quantity.  The court should exercise its discretion to pass a sentence appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

42.  Bearing in mind the above, I hold that the initial sentencing range for 35.326 kilogrammes of ketamine should be around 24 years’ imprisonment.

43.  Now regarding step 2, concerning the defendants’ role and culpability, I accept that the 1st defendant was a courier and storekeeper of the drugs in question.

44.  Regarding the 2nd defendant, I consider that she was one step above the 1st defendant in the hierarchy.  She recruited the 1st defendant.  The 2nd defendant instructed the 1st defendant to rent the To Kwa Wan Room.  Further, the 2nd defendant determined the remuneration to be paid to the 1st defendant.

45.  Regarding step 3, based on my findings made at step 2, I would adopt the following “notional sentences after trial” for the offences in question: 

(1) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 1, trafficking in cocaine: 21 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.

(2) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 2, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine: 21 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.

(3) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 3, conspiracy to traffic in ketamine: 24 years’ imprisonment.

(4) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 1, trafficking in cocaine: 21 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

(5) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 2, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine: 21 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

(6) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 3, conspiracy to traffic in ketamine: 24 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

46.  Regarding step 4, I am required to consider any aggravating features, which would go to enhance the “notional sentence after trial” identified under step 3. 

47.  There is one such aggravating feature in the present case, applicable to both the 1st and 2nd defendants. 

48.  This concerns the defendants’ previous conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  That is an accepted factor justifying an enhancement of sentence under step 4.  For this I would enhance the sentences of the defendants by 6 months’ imprisonment. 

49.  This will take the “notional sentence after trial” to the following levels:

(1) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 1, trafficking in cocaine: 21 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

(2) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 2, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine: 21 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

(3) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 3, conspiracy to traffic in ketamine: 24 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

(4) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 1, trafficking in cocaine: 22 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.

(5) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 2, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine: 22 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.

(6) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 3, conspiracy to traffic in ketamine: 25 years’ imprisonment.

50.  Regarding step 5, for the 1st defendant, as a matter of discretion, I would afford the 1st defendant a discount of two months for her participation in Father Wotherspoon’s program.  This would take the “notional sentence after trial” for Charges 1 and 2 down to 21 years and 5 months, and for Charge 3 down to 24 years and 4 months.

51.  Furthermore, regarding the 1st defendant, there are special circumstances on the papers which justify a lenient view to be taken of the facts, for which I will give a 45 per cent discount from the “notional sentence after trial”. 

52.  Accordingly the 1st defendant is sentenced to the following terms of imprisonment:

(1) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 1, trafficking in cocaine: 11 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

(2) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 2, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine: 11 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

(3) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 3, conspiracy to traffic in ketamine: 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

53.  Regarding the 2nd defendant, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce her sentence is her timely guilty pleas, for which I will give her a one-third discount. 

54.  Accordingly the 2nd defendant is sentenced to the following terms of imprisonment:

(1) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 1, trafficking in cocaine: 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

(2) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 2, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine: 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

(3) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 3, conspiracy to traffic in ketamine: 16 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

55.  Regarding step 6, as mentioned above, I consider that the sentences on Charge 1 and Charge 2 should run concurrently. However, Charge 3 concerns a wholly separate and different batch of drugs, stored at a different location.  In principle, consecutive sentences would be appropriate but, of course, subject to the question of totality. 

56.  In all the circumstances of this case, I consider that a global sentence for the 1st defendant should be 13 years and 9 months’ imprisonment and a global sentence for the 2nd defendant should be 17 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

57.  To achieve that totality, for the 1st defendant, I order that the sentences on Charge 1 and Charge 2 are to run concurrently, and 5 months of those sentences are to run consecutively with the sentence on Charge 3, making a total sentence of 13 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

58.  For the 2nd defendant, I order that the sentences on Charge 1 and Charge 2 are to run concurrently, and 6 months of those sentences are to run consecutively with the sentence on Charge 3, making a total sentence of 17 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

59.  Finally, I consider that the above sentences are fair, just and balanced sentences in all the circumstances of this case and taking into account the circumstances of the two defendants.