HKSAR v. DENG YANJIE

HCCC 111/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4119

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 111 OF 2026

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to 1 count of trafficking in a dangerous drug[1] and was committed, on 12 March 2026, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The defendant confirmed his plea and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and his conviction was duly recorded.

2.  Particulars of the Charge are that the defendant, on 23 August 2024, at Customs Arrival Hall A, Hong Kong International Airport, Chek Lap Kok, Lantau Island, New Territories, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 3,501 grammes of a mixture containing 2,890 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

FACTS

3.  The facts admitted can be summarized as follows.

4.  On 23 August 2024, the Defendant arrived in Hong Kong from Bangkok, Thailand via flight CX750.  A Customs Officer intercepted the Defendant at the “Nothing to Declare” Channel at Customs Arrival Hall A at the Airport.  The Defendant was carrying a grey backpack and a silver suitcase.  He confirmed he flew in from Thailand and produced his People's Republic of China passport.

5.  X-ray screening was conducted on his baggage and revealed that there were suspicious items concealed therein.  The luggage tag of the Defendant’s silver suitcase matched with his name.  The Defendant confirmed the suitcase belonged to him.  Upon search of the suitcase, four bricks of dangerous drugs wrapped in plastic wrappings were concealed among clothing, and a total of six blocks of dangerous drugs wrapped in plastic wrappings were concealed in 3 snack packets.

6.  White powder was found inside the bricks.  Narcotic test on them showed positive result to heroin.

7.  The Defendant was arrested and cautioned.  Under caution, he replied in Putonghua that someone from a work group in WeChat Moment told him to bring this suitcase to Hong Kong and give it to somebody and he was promised some benefits in return, but he did not know what was inside.

8.  A search was conducted on the Defendant with the following items seized: (i) A grey backpack; (ii) A brown wallet; (iii) A Two-Way Permit; (iv) A PRC identity card; (v) A PRC driver's licence; (vi) Thai Baht $319; (vii) the Defendant's PRC passport; (viii) 3 bank cards (of banks in Mainland China); (ix) A Macau Pass; (x) A social security card; (xi) A security card; (xii) A pair of glasses; (xiii) A bag of snacks; (xiv) 2 bags of health supplements; (xv) A bag of old clothes; (xvi) A pair of slippers; (xvii) A bunch of 4 keys; (xviii) A charger; (xix) A white mobile phone.

9.  The dangerous drugs seized from the Defendant was a total of 10 packets containing a total of 3,501 grammes of a mixture containing 2,890 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

10.  Subsequently, two cautioned video recorded interview were conducted with the Defendant.  During the first interview, he said he was unwell and the interview was paused.  In the second interview, the Defendant admitted to the following matters:

(1) He came from Fujian and was currently living alone in Shenzhen. He was educated up to high school level.

(2) On 20 August 2024, he arrived in Hong Kong via Fujian Port, Shenzhen and departed for Bangkok. The return flight tickets were purchased online prior to the trip and the money for the flight tickets was paid by an unknown person, ‘@八月’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘August’). He had known August for a few days prior to his trip via a group in WeChat Moment. He had never met August. He worked as a casual worker. August said he would arrange for the Defendant to go to Thailand for a leisure trip with flight tickets and hotel all paid for, and the only condition was that the Defendant would need to help August's friend to bring something back, namely tea leaves and expensive health supplements.

(3) The Defendant voluntarily provided his mobile phone (with passcode) to customs officer for examination.

(4) On 23 August 2024, August introduced a person ‘@威’ (hereinafter “Wai”) to the Defendant. Wai asked the Defendant to pick up the suitcase near the Thai airport. The Defendant had never met Wai. He was able to find the suitcase based on the photographs provided to him by Wai on WeChat. The Defendant checked in the suitcase at the airport and collected it after he had arrived in Hong Kong. Wai told the Defendant that someone would be in touch at the Hong Kong airport, but the Defendant was intercepted.

(5) The Defendant stated that he did not ask about remuneration as the travel expenses were covered.

(6) The Defendant then identified his conversations with August and Wai from his WeChat account on his mobile phone.

11.  Mobile phone examination was conducted on the Defendant's mobile phone.  It showed that August had paid money to the Defendant via a QR Code and August told him to ask for more money if he did not have enough money.  It also showed that the Defendant had been reporting to August about the progress of his trip by showing photographs of his locations.  The Defendant also sent suspicious messages to August, such as:

(1) “this time the suitcase was unzipped and I had already spoken with them and took photographs to show them, and they said this was okay. When the time comes, don't say that the things are missing. You'd better check clearly when you come to pick it up.”

(2) “Rest assured, I handle things carefully, I take your matters very carefully, we can cooperate on a long-term basis only when things go smoothly.”

12.  The mobile phone examination also showed that the Defendant had conversations with Wai reporting to Wai about the progress of his trip and his whereabouts. Wai had sent the Defendant a photograph and instructions about where the suitcase was placed for the Defendant to pick up.  The Defendant closely reported to Wai about the check-in process of the suitcase and sent Wai a photograph of thesuitcase being checked in at the counter.   The Defendant also reported to Wai that his flight had landed safely in Hong Kong, and Wai had instructed the Defendant to collect the suitcase directly and to call Wai after exiting via Gate A.  Wai promised that he would pay for the Defendant's taxi fare.

13.  The estimated retail value of all the heroin seized was HK$2,174,121.

14.  By his admission to the Summary of Facts, the defendant admits and accepts that he was unlawfully trafficking in all the dangerous drugs seized in the present case.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

15.  The defendant is of clear record.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

16.  Mr Stephen Fong, counsel for the Defendant, provided the Court with a short written submission for mitigation. 

17.  In summary, the Defendant is now 56 years old and is single.

18.  The antecedents statement recorded that the Defendant was educated up to High School level in Fujian.  After completing High School education, he worked as hotel waiter, construction worker, warehouse worker and security guard.

19.  The Defendant wrote a mitigation letter to the court to show his remorse for the offence, which has been duly considered.

SENTENCING

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

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

21.  The six-step sentencing approach introduced by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[2], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[3], are applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff band

22.  Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question.

23.  This case concerns heroin hydrochloride.  For 2,890 grammes of heroin hydrochloride the sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 for heroine narcotics are applied and it would fall under the band of “1,500 - 5,000 g: 20 to 24 years imprisonment”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

24.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant.  

25.  I accept Mr Fong’s submission that the Defendant in this case is mere courier.

26.  However, as fairly accepted by Mr Fong, there is an “international element” in this case which aggravates the Defendant’s culpability.

27.  As the Court of Appeal explained in HKSAR v Raman Kapusamy [2024] 2 HKLRD 955, the international element is to be considered as part of the assessment of the offender's role and culpability.  It is a factor or circumstance in the commission of the offence, albeit one which normally made the offender's role and culpability more serious and enhanced the starting point for sentence.

28.  While many cases would continue to be distinguishable only by the quantities of narcotic being trafficked, there were others where the sentencing judge may adopt a more tailored approach to sentence by assessing the offender's role and culpability. It was no longer productive to consider standard or uniform enhancements for the international elementdepending on the quantity. Nevertheless, sentencing judges should consider that the greater the quantity the drugs, the more harm was caused by that quantity entering Hong Kong and being disseminated. Quantity must, therefore, still play a role in any enhancement for the international factor (Raman Kapusamy See paras 55-59).

29.  The international element may take a number of different forms including the carrying of drugs across borders by couriers, importing drugs, receiving a parcel from abroad, and ordering drugs from abroad.  These were not exhaustive categories and even within them, there may be variations and different gradations of seriousness in assessing different roles and culpability. The international element therefore may not lend itself to standard or uniform enhancement.

30.  The Court in Raman Kapusamy stated at para 60: “… The most common example to come before the courts is the courier who, for a fee or reward, crosses the border with dangerous drugs secreted in or on their person or in their luggage.” However, I note that this case has an additional feature whereby the Defendant in fact flew from Hong Kong to Thailand to collect the drugs with all expenses covered, he then returned to Hong Kong after a 3-day trip and was caught at Hong Kong International Airport.

31.  But “Whatever form the international element takes in the context of trafficking in dangerous drugs, all offenders have one thing in common: they have each either arranged, or caused or facilitated dangerous drugs to be brought over the border illegally into (or out of) Hong Kong. That is essentially what the international element in the present context means.” (§61).

32.  In Lee Ming Ho (§58), the Court explained that:-

“. . . there may be a distinction between the foreigner arriving in Hong Kong for the first time from an impoverished country with a consignment of dangerous drugs, who may not, through naivetyor lack of education, fully appreciate the enormity of what he is doing and the appalling consequences of the punishment that will be meted out when he is caught; and the courier from Hong Kong, who journeys across the world to collect a consignment of drugs in order to bring it back to Hong Kong, knowing full well the gravity of his crime and what awaits him when he returns.”

33.  The Defendant in this case falls in between the two descriptions above.  On the one hand, he cannot be said to be a foreigner arriving in Hong Kong for the first time from an impoverished country and committed the offence through naivety.  On the other hand, on the evidence available to the Court, he cannot be said to have travelled to Hong Kong from the Mainland then travelled to Thailand with a view to committing the offence.[4] I accept Mr Fong’s submission that the international element is engaged as the Defendant brought the drugs back to Hong Kong from Thailand.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

34.  On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline band: 2,890 grammes of heroin hydrochloride would lead to a notional starting point of 21 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

35.  In determining the appropriate overall starting point, I must also take into consideration the role and the culpability of the defendant.  His role is a mere courier, but with the “international element” and viewing that in context of the quantity of drugs involved in this case – I shall enhance the overall starting point by 1 year and 6 months resulting in an overall starting point of 23 years and 1 months’ imprisonment at this step.

36.  In doing so, I have borne in mind the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lam San Yau [2026] 1 HKLRD 721 at paras 21-22 (said in the context of enhancement of sentence by reason of prior convictions) that enhancement of sentence “needs to be balanced against the comparative seriousness” of the offence, be reasonably proportionate to the basic sentence and not be excessive. 

Step 4: Aggravating factors

37.  There are no other aggravating factors applicable in this case.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

38.  I have considered the mitigation advanced on behalf of the Defendant together with the mitigation letter from him.

39.  Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the only strong mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is his guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the sentence down to 15 years and 4 months imprisonment.

Step 6: Totality

40.  This case does not engage the situation of multiple counts or multiple aggravating factors.  The sentence is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

FINAL SENTENCE

41.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 15 years and 4 months.