HKSAR v. MARQUES ALVELOS COSTA ANA CRISTINA AND ANOTHER

HCCC 322/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 322 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The 1st and 2nd defendants both pleaded guilty to one charge of “trafficking a dangerous drug” and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 25 September 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the 1st and 2nd defendants confirmed their plea and their admission to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of the charge state that on 3 December 2023, at Customs Arrival Hall A, Passenger Terminal Building 1, Hong Kong International Airport, Chek Lap Kok, Lantau Island, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the 1st and 2nd defendants unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 1,787 grammes of a solid containing 1,092 grammes of cocaine. 

3.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendants provides, inter alia, as follows.  On the evening of 3 December 2023, the 1st and 2nd defendants arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport from Paris.  As they sought to leave Customs Arrival Hall A through the Green Channel, claiming to have no declarable items on them, they were intercepted for customs clearance.  Under verbal enquiry, the 1st defendant claimed to possess dutiable cigarettes in her luggage as well as the 2nd defendant’s.  The 1st and 2nd defendants were brought to luggage check where declarable cigarettes were found from each of their luggage.  Further enquiry raised suspicion of possible internal concealment of dangerous drugs inside the defendants.  With their consent, the 1st and 2nd defendants were escorted to the North Lantau Hospital for medical examination. 

4.  Between 3 and 6 December 2023, the 1st defendant discharged a total of 94 pellets (consisting of plastic wrappings) containing 850 grammes of a solid containing 513 grammes of cocaine, whereas the 2nd defendant discharged a total of 165 pellets (consisting of plastic wrappings) containing 937 grammes of a solid containing 579 grammes of cocaine.  Of the 94 pellets found on the 1st defendant, one pellet was found from her vagina. 

5.  As at the time of seizure, the estimated market value of the total amount of drugs, namely 259 packets containing 1,787 grammes of a solid containing 1,092 grammes of cocaine, was HK$1,633,318. 

6.  The pellets respectively discharged from the 1st and 2nd defendants appeared to be identical. 

7.  The 1st and 2nd defendants travelled to Hong Kong from Paris on 3 December 2023 via the same flight and sat next to each other.  They booked the same return flight to Paris on 12 December 2023.  A hotel booking for two persons in Hong Kong were booked in the 1st defendant’s name for the period of 3 to 6 December 2023. 

8.  At the time of arrest, the 1st defendant had with her, inter alia, two mobile phones and cash of HK$3,782, 805.94 Euros, 15 Jamaican Dollars and 23 Brazilian Reals.  The 2nd defendant had with her, inter alia, cash of HK$69.8 and 501.36 Euros, and a mobile phone. 

9.  The 2nd defendant claimed in her cautioned interview, inter alia, that:

(1) she received education up to secondary education. At the time of the interview, she was indebted for approximately 9,000 Euros;

(2) this was her first visit to Hong Kong. She came from Paris with the 1st defendant with whom she was acquainted through friends. They came to Hong Kong at the arrangement of a dark‑coloured skin male nicknamed “Yellow”. Yellow sent the tickets to the 1st defendant and asked them to wait for someone to contact them upon their arrival at the hotel in Hong Kong;

(3) prior to departure for Hong Kong, another male gave pellets for her and the 1st defendant to swallow. They swallowed the pellets together;

(4) the 1st defendant was responsible for the contacts;

(5) she was going to be paid 7,000 Euros upon arrival in Hong Kong.

10.  Two mobile phones were seized from the 1st defendant whilst one was seized from the 2nd defendant. All three phones contained a contact number whom, as confirmed by the 2nd defendant in her caution interview, belonged to Yellow.  The same contact number was saved on both of the 1st defendant’s phone as “Meu2”, and “Dey Lawmanamarelo” with WhatsApp communications found. 

11.  On 1 December 2023, that is two days prior to the defendants’ arrival from Paris to Hong Kong, Meu2 sent the Paris hotel booking confirmation in the 1st defendant’s name for that night to the 1st defendant.  Between 2 and 3 December 2023, the 1st defendant claimed to Meu2 that she was feeling unwell, that “I can’t do it any longer. I’ve had it up to my neck, I’m sick, I’ve thrown up.  She’s feeling the same as me”.  In response, Meu2 sent the 1st and 2nd defendants’ return trip flight tickets and hotel booking to the 1st defendant.  When boarding the plane with the 2nd defendant to Hong Kong, the 1st defendant sent a selfie of herself and the 2nd defendant inside the cabin to Meu2, saying that they shall see her (Meu2) tomorrow. 

12.  The 1st and 2nd defendants expressly admit and accept that at all material times, they jointly unlawfully trafficked in the total amount of cocaine seized. 

13.  Regarding the personal background of the 1st defendant, she is a holder of a Portuguese passport.  The 1st defendant was born in Lisboa, Portugal in June 1965 and is now 60 years of age.  The 1st defendant has a clear criminal record in Hong Kong.  The 1st defendant has been separated from her husband since 2012.  The 1st defendant has one daughter, aged 42.  The 1st defendant received education up to secondary level.  She did cleaning and kitchen jobs, earning around 800 Euros per month.

14.  I am told that prior to committing this offence, the 1st defendant lived with her elderly parents.  The 1st defendant was their primary carer and provided support for their living. 

15.  I am told that due to various difficulties that accumulated out of the 1st defendant’s control, she became indebted with no pathway to alleviate her problems.  It was at this point that a person, believed to be of African origin, put forward the scheme by which she would conceal drugs inside her body.  The flight to Hong Kong as well as the accommodation were all arranged and paid for by third parties. 

16.  As regard the personal background of the 2nd defendant, she is also a Portuguese national.  She was born in December 1981.  She is thus currently 43 years old.  The 2nd defendant is a single mother with one daughter (26 years old) and two sons aged respectively 24 and 9.  At the time of her arrest, she lived with her youngest son, who was still dependent on her.  The 2nd defendant worked at a supermarket earning around 900 Euros per month.  The 2nd defendant received education up to secondary level in Portugal. 

17.  The 2nd defendant struggled as a single mother to shoulder the expenses for her and her son’s living expenses.  She took out a loan which she was subsequently unable to repay.  It was due to her financial situation that she committed the present offence. 

18.  She is deeply remorseful and worries about her youngest son as he depended on her both financially and as his primary care giver.  And like the 1st defendant, prior to the present offence the 2nd defendant had a clear criminal record in Hong Kong.

19.  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 factor 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”. 

20.  Regarding the first step, for 1,092 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. 

21.  Second, concerning the defendants’ role and culpability, I accept that the defendants were couriers, in that they brought the drugs from Paris, France to Hong Kong.  However, this case clearly involves an international element.  This is an important factor when assessing the role and culpability of the defendants 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 under the admitted joint enterprise between the 1st and 2nd defendants, 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.

22.  Third, for 1,092 grammes of cocaine, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a “notional sentence after trial” of 18 years and 4.4 months’ imprisonment. 

23.  For the international element of this case as held above, I would increase the “notional sentence after trial” by 12 months, taking it to 19 years and 4.4 months’ imprisonment.

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

25.  Fifth, the 1st and 2nd defendants’ principal mitigation is their timely plea, for which I will give them a full one-third discount.  Accordingly, the defendants’ sentence is each reduced to 12 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. 

26.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 12 years and 10 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of the defendants. 

27.  Accordingly, the defendants are each sentenced to 12 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.