HKSAR v. MACHADO LUIZA KAROLINE

HCCC 321/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 321 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of “trafficking in a dangerous drug” and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings in the Eastern Magistracy on 25 September 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed her plea and her admission to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of the charge state that on 28 July 2024, at the Customs Green Channel, Customs Arrival Hall A, Hong Kong International Airport, Chek Lap Kok, Lantau Island, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 1,200 grammes of a solid containing 985 grammes of cocaine. 

3.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows.  At about 3.55 pm on 28 July 2024, the defendant, who was carrying a handbag and a luggage, was intercepted at the Customs Green Channel, Customs Arrival Hall A, Hong Kong International Airport.  When the defendant was asked in English whether she had anything to declare, she made no reply.  The defendant was directed to Counter N5 for baggage examination.  The defendant’s boarding pass showed that she took the flight QR818 to Hong Kong from Doha.  Baggage examination failed to show anything suspicious. 

4.  At about 4.20 pm, a plastic packet was found concealed in the defendant’s vagina upon body search.  When the defendant was arrested and cautioned in English, the defendant replied in a foreign language.  The defendant was taken to North Lantau Hospital (“NLH”) for medical examination.  About 7.20 pm, medical doctor of NLH confirmed that the defendant’s anus contained foreign substance.  About 7.25 pm, the defendant discharged a plastic packet at NLH.  The defendant was then taken to Queen Elizabeth Hospital (“QEH”).  Between 1.05 am on 29 July 2024 and 10.45 pm on 31 July 2024, the defendant further discharged a total of 126 packets on 18 occasions at QEH.  The defendant had discharged a total of 127 packets (consisting of plastic wrappings) containing a total of 1,200 grammes of a solid containing 985 grammes of cocaine. 

5.  In the subsequent record of interview, which was taken in the presence of a Portuguese interpreter, the defendant stated under caution that:

(1) She is single. She has a daughter who was 11 years old and a son who was 6 years old. She lived with her mother, her brother, and her two children. She was the sole breadwinner of the family. She had sold cooked food, earning about 2,000 to 2,500 Brazilian Reals.

(2) As she was in need of money, she went downtown and met a man called Junior who seemed to be a Nigerian. Junior proposed the defendant to swallow pellets of dangerous drugs and promise to give the defendant a reward of US$5,000, which would be converted to Brazilian Reals, when she returned. Junior did not specify the type of the dangerous drug. She accepted the offer because of her financial needs.

(3) Junior gave her a ticket to go to Sao Paulo and a piece of paper with an address stated on it. After she arrived at Sao Paulo, she took a car to the address on Tuesday morning. A man greeted her and she stayed at the house. On Friday morning, the man gave her the pellets to swallow and told her that they were cocaine pallets. At around 9 pm on the same day, she ordered an Uber to take her to the airport for traveling to Hong Kong. She only came to know that she was to travel to Hong Kong on Friday.

(4) She was instructed to take a taxi to a hotel after she arrived in Hong Kong to wait for a person who would meet her at the hotel.

(5) She was offered food and no one had hurt her during her stay at the house. She could use her mobile phone, but she did not use it because she was scared. The man asked her not to tell anyone where she was or where she was going.

(6) The man in Sao Paulo gave her the itinerary, the hotel booking confirmation and US$700. She was to exchange US$700 for her use in Hong Kong.

6.  An itinerary, hotel booking records, two boarding passes of QR774 and QR818, a departure card, a mobile phone which contain a SIM card, US$700 and 94 Brazilian Reals was found on the defendant at the time of the arrest. 

7.  The itinerary showed that:

(1) the defendant travelled from Sao Paulo, Brazil to Doha, Qatar, on 27 July 2024, and from Doha, Qatar to Hong Kong, on 28 July 2024; and

(2) the defendant was to travel from Hong Kong to Doha, Qatar, on 7 August 2024, and from Doha, Qatar to Sao Paulo, Brazil on 8 August 2024.

8.  Movement records showed that the defendant entered into Hong Kong at 3.52 pm on 28 July 2024. 

9.  Hotel record showed that the defendant had reserved a hotel room in Hong Kong from 28 July 2024 to 31 July 2024 at the total cost of HK$1,420.42. 

10.  The estimated prevailing street value of the dangerous drug seized was HK$901,200. 

11.  The defendant admits that at the material time, she trafficked in a dangerous drug by knowingly importing the dangerous drugs into Hong Kong. 

12.  Regarding the personal background of the defendant, she is a Brazilian national.  She was born on 27 September 1994 and is thus currently 31 years of age.  I am further told that the defendant attended university in Brazil where she studied gastronomy.  She only completed half of that course as she could not afford to complete her studies after losing her job. 

13.  In December 2023, after losing her job the defendant started her own food business which she ran out of her home.  Her earnings fluctuated and averaged between 1,200 to 2,500 Brazilian Reals per month (ie between HK$1,700 to HK$3,600).

14.  The defendant is a single mother with two children, a daughter now aged 13 and a son now aged 8. Prior to the offence, she resided in Brazil with her mother, younger brother, and her two children.  The defendant was struggling financially as the main breadwinner for her family.  Her business was not doing well, and eventually she did not have the funds to buy the products to cook with after paying the household expenses.  In addition, her son suffers from ADHD and requires daily medication to control his behaviour.  The defendant was advised to see private paediatric treatment as public medical treatment had long waiting lists.  The defendant’s mother had also run up debt and the family had no means to pay them. It is a culmination of these financial issues that led to the present offence.

15.  I am further told this morning that the defendant’s daughter is now suffering tremendously from being separated from the defendant and she has developed psychological or psychiatric problem and is receiving treatment for her anxiety.  I am also told that the defendant is extremely remorseful and promised not to reoffend. 

16.  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 to 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 the defendant based on 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 the 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”. 

17.  Regarding the first step, for 985 grammes of cocaine, the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, at paragraph 62. 

18.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a courier, in that she brought the drugs from Brazil to Hong Kong via Qatar.  However, this case clearly involves an international element.  This is an important factor when assessing the role and culpability of the defendant in order to identify the appropriate starting point for sentence.  I have to bear in mind the quantity of narcotic being introduced into Hong Kong, which not only increases the supply of the particular dangerous drug but causes great harm to the community: see HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho, supra, at paragraph 74. 

19.  Third, for 985 grammes of cocaine, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a “notional sentence after trial” of 17 years and 11.3 months’ imprisonment.  For the international element of this case as held above, I would increase the “notional sentence after trial” by 12 months, taking it to 18 years and 11.3 months’ imprisonment. 

20.  Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the “notional sentence after trial”. 

21.  Fifth, the defendant’s principal mitigation is her timely plea, for which I will give her a full one-third discount as suggested by the defendant’s counsel.  Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reduced to 12 years and 7 months’ imprisonment. 

22.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 12 years and 7 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of the defendant.