HKSAR v. CEDENO MEJIAS ANGEL RAFAEL

CACC 205/2025, [2026] HKCA 127

On Appeal From [2019] HKCFI 646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 205 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 253 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

____________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

____________________________________

Hon Macrae VP (giving the Reasons for Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 1 February 2019, the appellant was committed to the High Court for sentence before Poon J (“the judge”) on one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 963 grammes of a solid containing 736 grammes of cocaine, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 13 years and 1 month.

2.  By a Form XI filed on 23 June 2025, the appellant sought leave to appeal against sentence out of time, relying on the Court’s recent decision in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3)[1]. Leave to appeal out of time was granted by the Single Judge on 5 November 2025[2].

Admitted facts

3.  On 19 August 2017, the appellant, a Venezuelan national, arrived at Hong Kong International Airport on a flight from São Paulo in Brazil via Addis Ababa in Ethiopia. He was intercepted by Customs officers and found to have foreign objects concealed within his body.  He was duly admitted to North Lantau hospital, where he discharged 82 plastic coated packets of dangerous drugs as particularised in the indictment, valued at some HK$858,000. He remained silent under caution. Also found in his possession were US$800 in cash, Venezuelan currency totalling $123,705 in cash (approximately HK$97,000), a mobile telephone, as well as travel documents for a return flight departing from Hong Kong on 28 August 2011 following the same route.

Reasons for sentence

4.  The appellant was 32 years of age at the time of sentence, a construction worker and married with two sons and a daughter.  He had a clear record in both Hong Kong and Venezuela.

5.  Having regard to the guidelines set out in HKSAR v Abdallah[3], the judge adopted an arithmetical starting point of 20½ years’ imprisonment, to which he added a further year for the international element of bringing dangerous drugs across the border into Hong Kong. A total discount of 38% was then given, which included one‑third for the appellant’s timely guilty plea and some allowance for his genuine assistance to the authorities, albeit that such assistance had been characterised as having been of no practical use. A further deduction of 3 months’ imprisonment was then made in respect of his participation in Father  Wotherspoon’s anti‑drug trafficking campaign. The result was a sentence of imprisonment for 13 years and 1 month (246 months + 12 months) x 62% - 3 months).

The respondent’s submissions

6.  Mr Edward Lau, for the respondent, for whose measured submissions we are grateful, does not oppose the appeal. He accepted that the ‘state of affairs’ described in Seabrook v HKSAR[4] would have existed at the time of the appellant’s sentence; accordingly, if one were to follow the judge’s sentencing approach, the result under Huang Ruifang (No 3), in conjunction with the stepped approach in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[5], would be a sentence of 11 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. However, Mr Lau submitted that the judge’s enhancement under HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun[6] for the international element where 736 grammes of cocaine narcotic were smuggled over the border into Hong Kong was generous; as was the ‘token’ discount for participating in Father Wotherspoon’s anti-drug trafficking campaign.

Discussion

7.  We agreed with Mr Lau’s submissions. Since we were sentencing afresh based upon revised guidelines, we considered that we were not bound by the way the judge had sentenced the appellant under the previous guidelines. The appellant, a foreign national, had crossed the continents of South America, Africa and Asia to put 736 grammes of cocaine narcotic, worth some HK$858,000, onto the streets of Hong Kong. He was an international drugs courier and his role and culpability were very grave indeed. We determined that, while a strict arithmetical starting point for the quantity concerned under the revised guidelines would be 16 years and 11 months’ imprisonment, the appropriate sentence after trial, bearing in mind his role and culpability, should have been 18 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

8.  Allowing the appellant a full one-third discount for his timely plea of guilty would reduce his sentence to 12 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. We accepted that the appellant, his wife and his mother have all been involved in the anti-drug trafficking campaign of Father Wotherspoon in Venezuela and that the judge considered it appropriate to give a further discount for this reason. However, we gave a deduction of 2 months rather than 3 months for this factor. We have already said in Secretary for Justice v Pastana Carvalho Andreza Narely[7] that “3 months’ discount for this factor, where it properly arises and is fully established by evidence, is the limit of the Court’s discretion”. We would take this opportunity to remind judges of what was said in HKSAR v Cherop Caroline[8]:

“We also wish to stress that a discount of up to three months is neither automatic, nor is it an entitlement: indeed, three months represents the limit of what might be given for this factor and is to be regarded as exceptional.”

We saw nothing exceptional to warrant a 3-month deduction for this factor in this case.

9.  In the circumstances, the sentence became one of 12 years’ imprisonment. The appeal was allowed and the appellant’s sentence accordingly reduced from 13 years and 1 month’s imprisonment to 12 years’ imprisonment. This resulted in his immediate release, although we were informed that the appellant would be placed in Immigration detention pending his deportation.