HKSAR v. SHUM CHI SHEUNG VERONICA

HCCC 16/2025

[2025] HKCFI 1646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 16 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs[1] before Magistrate Ms. Minnie Wat, admitted to the summary of facts and was committed, on 30^th December 2024, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. She confirmed her plea and admissions before me and the conviction was duly recorded.

2.  Particulars of the charge are that she on 16^th April, 2023, outside No.380 Shanghai Street, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 18.07 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 18.07 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly referred to as ‘ice’)  and 1.49 grammes of a solid containing 1.22 grammes of cocaine.

FACTS

3.  The defendant was seen walking on the street furtively at around 11:42am on the charge date and was intercepted outside No.380 Shanghai Street.  Upon search of her handbag, two bags were found, which contained multiple re-sealable plastic bags with suspected dangerous drugs inside.  

4.  The defendant was arrested and claimed under caution that the drugs were for her self-consumption.

5.  Inside her handbag was also a notebook, with nicknames and addresses with numbers written against them, which appeared to be quantity of drugs and the corresponding price.  Some pages appear to be have dates written on them.  There are also columns of names with what look like prisoner numbers written next to them.  One of the entries reads “1/3 [sentenced].5moths.Tai Chau”.

6.  The total prevailing estimated street value of all the seized drugs was $14,457 (as cocaine powder)  or $15,177 (as crack cocaine).

7.  By her admission to paragraph 5 of the Summary of Facts, the defendant had admitted to being in possession of all the seized drugs for the purpose of trafficking at all material times.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

8.  The defendant has just one conviction dated 3^rd April 2019, when she was fined $100 for gambling in a gambling establishment.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

9.  The defendant was born in Hong Kong in May 1964 and is almost 61 years old.  She is mother to 3 adult children, and lives with her youngest son.  She would help take care of the eldest of her 3 grandchildren.  

10.  The defendant was educated up to Form 3 level, after which she took up part-time jobs, working in hotels and travel agencies.  She stayed home to look after the children after getting married, relying on her husband.  After her divorce, she had not received any financial support from her ex-husband and had to rely on CSSA, as well as part-time jobs until her children were able to contribute to the family financially.  She continued to receive a monthly disability allowance of $2,100. She had not been in contact with her ex-husband since their divorce.

11.  The defendant has been suffering from mental illness since 2001 and is on medication for depression, with monthly follow up treatment.  She claimed in her antecedent statement to be a drug abuser and that she had been taking ice every day.

12.  The defendant’s sons, daughter, daughter-in-law, grandchild and friend all wrote in mitigation seeking leniency.  They speak to how the defendant is a kind and caring person, a loving and devoted mother who singlehandedly raised the kids, how she became depressed since her divorce and had attempted suicide and been committed to mental institutions.  They know that trafficking in dangerous drugs is a serious crime, but understand that the defendant was just trying her best to give her family a better life.  One of her grandchildren tells the court that the defendant has taught him many important values such as honesty, respect and compassion, and believes she deserves a chance.

13.  Ms. Maria So, counsel for the defendant, told the court that the defendant committed the offence to make some quick money for the family as well as to sustain her drug usage.  She is now very remorseful, and understands that she will be in prison for a long period of time.  She hopes to be able to be reunited with her family after her release, to start afresh and help look after her grandchildren.  

SENTENCING

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

15.  The sentencing approach and tariff bands as set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, are applied as follows.  

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff bands

16.  For the 18.07g of ice, and 1.22g of cocaine, the applicable guideline tariff bands are, respectively, “7 to 11 years”, and “2 to 5 years”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

17.  The defendant was found with 3 re-sealable plastic bags with 16.26g of crystalline solid inside (containing ice), and 3 new empty re-sealable plastic bags of the same size.  She also had 1 re-sealable plastic bag with 1.81g of crystalline solid (containing ice), 1 re-sealable plastic bag with the charged cocaine inside and 8 new empty re-sealable plastic bags of various sizes.

18.  It can safely be inferred that she was a courier of the drugs.  The evidence is, however, not as clear cut in relation to whether she was trafficking directly in those drugs, or whether she was in possession of them and in the process of delivering them to someone else for distribution.  There is no evidence of police officers witnessing her handing out the drugs, despite the contents of the notebook, which might or might not have been written by her.  As Ms. So also pointed out in her submissions, the defendant did not have a large amount of cash on her person when arrested, supporting a reasonable inference that she was not a direct trafficker.

19.  I will grant the benefit of the doubt to the defendant and find that her role is that of a mere courier and sentence her on this basis.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

20.  Based on my finding of the defendant’s role and culpability as a courier, the corresponding notional starting points for the ice and cocaine are, respectively, 7 years 6 months, and 2 years 4 months.

21.  Since two different types of dangerous drugs were trafficked, I adopt the combined approach as propounded in HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin [2004] 3 HKC 367.  I have applied the absurdity, conversion and ratio tests as used in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong CACC 318/2013 to assist me in arriving at the appropriate combined starting point.  

ABSURDITY TEST

22.  On the basis of all 19.29g of narcotics were the more potent drug of Ice, any combined starting point above 7 years 7 months would be regarded as absurdly high.

CONVERSION TEST

23.  If the cocaine is converted into ice that would yield the equivalent sentence, the total converted quantity of ice would be 18.07g, which would have a notional starting point of 7 years 6 months.

RATIO TEST

24.  Based on the proportion of the different drugs involved, the sentence should be about 7 years and 6 months.

THE COMBINED NOTIONAL STARTING POINT

25.  Having regard to the above test results, taking into consideration the defendant’s role and culpability as a courier, I will adopt a combined starting point of 7 years 6 months’ imprisonment.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

26.  The defendant trafficked in 2 different types of drugs and it is trite law that trafficking in more than one variety of dangerous drugs is an aggravating factor, because the trafficker will be able to cater to a wider market[2]. Given the quantity involved, I will enhance the sentence by 6 months, taking the combined starting point to 8 years.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

27.  The only mitigating factor is the defendant’s timely guilty plea, for which she is given the usual one-third discount.  

Step 6: Totality

28.  Taking a step back, I find the sentence fair, just and balanced.

FINAL SENTENCE

29.  The final sentence is 64 months, or 5 years 4 months’ imprisonment after plea.