HKSAR v. SALEH ABD EL HAMID SALEH MOHAMED

HCCC 22/2025

[2025] HKCFI 1517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 22 OF 2025

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug[1] before Magistrate Ms. Winnie Wat and was committed, on 16^th January 2025, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. He confirmed his pleas and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and his convictions were duly recorded.

2.  Particulars of count 1 are that, the defendant on 22^nd October, 2023, at Operation Room 9B, Kwong Wah Hospital, No. 25 Waterloo Road, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 20.55 grammes of a solid containing 17 grammes of cocaine.

3.  Particulars of count 2 are that he on 23^rd October 2023, at Room 1818, iClub Hotel, No. 2 Anchor Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 121 grammes of a solid containing 102 grammes of cocaine.

FACTS

4.  The defendant was found lying on the floor on the 18^th floor of iClub Hotel at 10:50am on 22^nd October 2023, with his hand on his abdomen and complaining about pain.  He was taken to Kwong Wah Hospital where a CT scan revealed 2 foreign objects in his colon, and the case was reported to the police.  

5.  Emergency surgery was then performed on the defendant’s perforated colon, and the objects were extracted in the process.  The foreign objects with plastic wrappings, each about 4cm in length, were later found to contain the cocaine in count 1.

6.  Enquiry with the Hotel showed the defendant rented rooms 1508 and then 1818 from 14 to 23 October.  Suspecting there might be more drugs, Police gained entry to Room 1818 of the Hotel at 12:46pm the following day.  Upon search, 12 packets wrapped in a tissue paper were found from a white plastic bag inside a black suitcase.  All the dangerous drugs in count 2 were contained in those 12 packets.  

7.  Movement records showed that the defendant entered Hong Kong at 8:36am on 14^th October 2023, from Finland.

8.  CCTV footages show the defendant checked in alone at 9:50am on 14^th October.  He left Room 1508 at 8:21pm on 20^th October and entered Room 1818 about 12 minutes later, carrying a backpack and a black suitcase.  The defendant came out of Room 1818 at 10:52am on 22^nd October, knelt on the floor in the corridor, pressing his hand against his abdomen as if in pain.  

9.  The estimated street value of the cocaine seized was $140,418 in powder form, or $150,468 as crack cocaine.  

10.  By his admission to the Summary of Facts, the defendant had accepted that, at all material times, he was in unlawful possession of the seized dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking.  

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

11.  The defendant was of clear record in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

12.  The defendant was born in Egypt in July 1977 and is 47 years old.  He moved to Finland in 2008 and is married to a Finnish national with two children aged 21 and 14.  The defendant was the sole breadwinner of the family, working as a chef.

13.  Mr. Pannu, counsel for the defendant, told the court that the defendant had lost his job during the COVID pandemic and, under the influence of his friends, started to experiment with crack cocaine to deal with the stress.  He soon became addicted. The defendant did, eventually, find a new job but the wages were not able to sustain his drug usage and his family expenses.  

14.  Therefore, when his drug supplier in Finland offered a free supply of crack cocaine in return for the defendant bringing some drugs into Hong Kong, the defendant accepted.

15.  Through Mr. Pannu, the defendant told the court that he had brought all the drugs found in this case into Hong Kong by concealing them inside his body.  He was able to excrete the 12 packets found in the hotel room, but the remaining 2 got stuck and had to be extracted through surgery.

16.  It is Mr. Pannu’s submissions that the defendant’s honesty would warrant a reduction in sentence.

SENTENCING

17.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for trafficking in dangerous drugs is life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

18.  Although the drugs were found at two locations, which led to the prosecution laying two charges, given the fact that it is obvious that the defendant’s possession of the drugs inside his person and the drugs in the hotel are directly connected, the starting point will be decided based on the combined quantity of drugs found[2].

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

19.  The guidelines and 6-step approach set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[3], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[4] are applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff bands

20.  The sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234 for cocaine are applied.

21.  For the 17g and 102g of cocaine in count 1 and 2, the applicable bands are “5 to 8 years” and “8 to 12 years” respectively.

22.  For the combined quantity of 119g, the guideline tariff band is “8 to 12 years”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

23.  The defendant entered Hong Kong on 14^th October and checked in to the Hotel the same day.  Six days later, he was seen moving the black suitcase from room 1508 to 1818 on 20^th October.  His colon perforated 2 days later with the drugs inside on 22^nd October, which led to his arrest and more drugs found from the black suitcase in room 1818.  The only reasonable inference is that the defendant had either brought the drugs into Hong Kong from overseas, or he was going to bring them out of Hong Kong, because if he was just moving the drugs within Hong Kong having received them in Hong Kong, there would not have been the need to conceal the drugs in his colon.  The only reason that was necessary was to avoid detection at the Customs checkpoints at the ports of Hong Kong.

24.  Furthermore, the defendant had confirmed in mitigation through Mr. Pannu that he did indeed traffic the drugs into Hong Kong from Finland, that all the drugs were hidden inside his body when he brought them into Hong Kong, and that he had excreted the drugs found in room 1818 after his arrival.

25.  Based on his role as an international drug courier, I find that his culpability is higher than that of a simple local courier, and the notional starting point will need to reflect this fact.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

26.  Based on my finding of the defendant’s role and culpability, and bearing in mind the significant quantity of drugs he brought into Hong Kong, I would adopt a combined global starting point of 133 months, which is 15 months higher than the arithmetical starting point for a courier or storekeeper.

27.  For the 17g and 102g of cocaine in counts 1 and 2, the individual starting point would, respectively, be 6 years, and 10 years after taking into consideration the international element.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

28.  The international element had already been incorporated into the combined, as well as individual notional starting points.  There are no other aggravating factors.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

29.  Based on the circumstantial evidence, even without the defendant’s admissions made in mitigation, the court would have, in any event, found that the defendant had either brought the drugs into Hong Kong from abroad, or was planning to bring them out of Hong Kong, and be able to draw the only reasonable inference that he was trafficking in the drugs, and that his role was an international courier. As such, there is to be no discount for his admissions made in mitigation, as anticipated by Mr. Pannu.

30.  In relation to the defendant’s injury sustained from the perforation of his intestines, first of all, this is an injury completely brought upon by himself.  Secondly, it is trite law that the main purpose of the sentence in serious trafficking cases is to deter.  If a discount is granted solely on the basis of the injury which is directly linked to the trafficking, it might send out the wrong message that it is better to hide the drugs in the body since a discount will be given if an injury results, and it would lessen the deterrent effect of the sentence, as well as encourage others to risk their life to smuggle drugs into Hong Kong in similar manner.  

31.  Additionally, whether and what surgery is to be done is a matter for the government doctors looking after the defendant.  Hong Kong has one of the best public health systems and doctors in the world, and the fact that the defendant himself believes he should have a certain type of surgery will be considered by the doctors when they make their professional decision.  I do not see any need to call for a medical report, even if I assume the defendant is telling the truth about his request for a particular type of surgery being denied.  

32.  The only mitigating factor is, therefore, the defendant’s timely guilty plea, for which he is granted the usual one-third discount.  

Step 6: Totality

33.  I have looked at the combined notional sentence after trial of 133 months, and I am of the view that it is a fair, just and balanced sentence in the circumstances of the offences and the defendant.  

FINAL SENTENCE

34.  The global sentence for the two counts after plea is, therefore, 88 months’ imprisonment when rounded up, or 7 years 4 months.  

35.  To achieve this combined sentence, in relation to count 1, I sentence the defendant to 48 months after plea, in relation to count 2, to 80 months after plea.  I order 40 months of the sentence in count 2 to be served consecutively to the 48 months sentence in count 1, the balance concurrently, leading to the final sentence of 7 years 4 months’ imprisonment.