HKSAR v. SAEHARN JAROENCHAI

HCCC 345/2024

[2025] HKCFI 3255

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 345 OF 2024

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant was charged with one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. He pleaded guilty before a magistrate and was committed before me for sentence.

In sentencing, I have considered the whole of the circumstances, including the nature and facts of the case, the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, personal background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf. I have also had regard to the sentencing approach as laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The defendant is a Thai national. On 22 July 2023, the defendant arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport and was refused permission to land. He was then taken for a search. When he opened his number locked suitcase, dangerous drug was found concealed inside a mat. The total quantity of the drug was 11,086 grammes of a mixture containing 9,260 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. Some cash was also found on the defendant. There were also messages in the phone of the defendant relating to the handling of the suitcase. Upon arrest and under caution, the defendant said he did not know what the white powder was and he would not receive any rewards for bringing it into Hong Kong. In a subsequent preliminary inquiry, under caution, the defendant made statements including the following:

(1) He will wait for instruction of the agent in Hong Kong for handling of the suitcase.

(2) He did not know the agent.

(3) The agent will contact him via “Line”.

(4) He did not know what was inside the suitcase.

(5) He will receive 30,000 Thai Baht as reward for delivery of the suitcase.

The defendant then agreed to participate in a controlled delivery operation, but as the other party suspected that the defendant had been arrested, the operation yielded no result.

I was told that the defendant is now 38 years of age. He did not have any criminal record in Hong Kong.

In mitigation, learned counsel for the defence, Ms Fanny Wong, informed the court that the defendant was born in Thailand and was educated up to Primary 6. He is not married but has two sons, both adults. He is a farmer and had worked both in Israel and Thailand. His parents are suffering from ill health and the defendant has to bear the medical expenses.

Ms Wong stressed that the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, as well as the minor role of the defendant in this exercise and his previous good character.

Ms Wong also asked the court to take into account that despite the exercise yielded no result, the defendant had voluntarily rendered his assistance to the authority by participating in a controlled delivery in which he communicated with the person he was supposed to contact for the delivery. In support of her submission, the case of HKSAR v Jardin Rodela Maningas, CACC 278/2011 was cited.

The dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was heroin. The total narcotic content was 9,260 grammes. Having regard to the observation of the Court of Final Appeal in Seabrook v HKSAR [1999] 2 HKCFAR 184, I am of the view that the tariff set out in the recent case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 should be applied.

In all the circumstances, I do not find there are good grounds to depart from the tariff.

In my judgment, the defendant played the role of a courier and there is no basis to find that he was a mastermind of the offence or a person occupying a higher position in the commission of this offence. I also bear in mind that this is the first time he has been convicted of any offence.

I have to take into account the international element in this case, and for this reason, bearing in mind the risk of excessive enhancement, it is my judgment that the starting point should be enhanced by 27 months.

In all the circumstances, I consider an ultimate notional sentence after trial of 27½ years is appropriate and sufficient.

The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate and for this he is entitled to a one-third discount. Having considered everything Ms Wong ably said on the defendant’s behalf, in particular in relation to his participation in the control delivery operation, I am persuaded to give the defendant a further discount of 2 years.

I do not find there exist any other matters which justify any further discount.

For the above said reasons, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 16 years and 4 months. In my judgment, this is a fair, just, and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the case and of you.