HKSAR v. SIPIKILLI RIDONI

HCCC 26/2025

[2025] HKCFI 2875

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 26 OF 2025

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

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

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.  Defendant faces one count of “Trafficking in a dangerous drug”, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  He pleaded guilty and admitted the summary of facts at the committal proceedings on 23 January 2025.

2.  This morning, he appeared before me for mitigation and sentence, having confirmed his plea and the admission of the summary of facts.

FACTS

3.  On 20 January 2024, the Defendant arrived Hong Kong by air from Guyana via New York.  When he passed through the Customs for clearance, he was intercepted for checking.  Although nothing illicit was found from his luggage, customs officers suspected the Defendant to have concealed dangerous drugs inside his body.  He was thus escorted to the North Lantau Hospital for medical examination.

4.  Later that day, preliminary medical examination confirmed the existence of foreign objects inside the Defendant.  Under caution for the offence of “Trafficking in a dangerous drug”, the Defendant denied knowledge of any foreign objects inside him and denied swallowing anything.  He denied having any friends in Hong Kong.

5.  Within the same evening, the Defendant discharged 14 pallets of suspected cocaine wrapped in plastic materials.  Upon preliminary confirmation of the pallets’ cocaine nature, the Defendant was holding-charged to the Court on 21 January 2024 whilst still under medical observation at the hospital.

6.  Between 21 and 22 January 2024, the Defendant discharged a total of 134 pallets which, upon chemical examination by the Government Chemist, was confirmed to contain 1.18 kilogrammes of a solid containing 978 grammes of cocaine.

7.  The estimated street value of the seized cocaine as at the time of the Defendant’s arrest amounted to HK$1,170,560.  At the time of arrest, the Defendant had US$1,089.97 and some Guyanese currency on his person.

8.  The Defendant now admits and accepts that at all material times, he knowingly possessed the seized cocaine for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

9.  Defendant was born in French Guiana.  He was born on 26 May 1993 and is now 32 years of age.  He is still single and had one brother.  His father was a garbage collector but is now retired.  His mother is a housewife.  He has a clear criminal record in Hong Kong.

10.  In mitigation, Ms. Patricia Alva, Counsel for the Defendant, informs me that before coming to Hong Kong, he had never travelled aboard.  He lived all his life in his place of birth which is a village with his parents and elder brother.  The Defendant later met his girlfriend and they have two children, now aged three and five.  The Defendant was not able to complete secondary education due to lack of financial resources. Instead, he obtained a professional aptitude certificate to work on construction sites as a building worker and in masonry and painting.  

11.  Ms. Alva explains to the court that six months before coming to Hong Kong, Defendant had a motorcycle accident and needed surgery on his left ankle and a metal plate was placed inside his ankle.  He is in pain and develops fever when it is cold and humid.  Given the humid climate in Hong Kong, he is going to live with the pain for the many years to come while serving his time.

12.  The Defendant has written a mitigation letter in which he asks for forgiveness and apologizes to the Hong Kong people and the authorities.  He has indicated that he will take up some courses during his imprisonment term.

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS

13.  It is well established that trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very serious offence.  I have considered the approach to sentencing those who traffic in dangerous drugs as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.  That was very recently discussed and reiterated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150. 

14.  In sentencing, six steps have been identified by the Court of Appeal, namely, assessing the gravity of the offence and applicable guideline, identifying the defendant’s role and culpability, where within the guideline the defendant should lie, any aggravating factors, any mitigating factors, and lastly, passing a sentence which is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of both the offence and the defendant. 

15.  The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guideline according to the drugs seized.  The sentencing guideline for cocaine is recently revised in the authority of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234.  In that case, it was held that the sentence for trafficking between 500 to 1,500 grammes is 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment after trial.  The present case involves 1.18 kilogrammes of a solid containing 978 grammes of cocaine.  Mathematically speaking, that amount of cocaine attracts a starting point of 17.91 years or 17 years 10.9 months of imprisonment. 

16.  The second step is to assess the defendant’s role and culpability based on the evidence.  In this case, he swallowed the drugs and the drugs were concealed inside his body when he tried to enter into the territory after landing in the Hong Kong International Airport.  In mitigation, the Defendant confirms that he was delivering the whole quantity of cocaine to a place according to the instruction of a friend in return for a reward of EURO 20,000.     

17.  In HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho (supra.), the Court of Appeal held that the international element, which used to be regarded as an aggravating factor in sentencing, should now to be regarded as a matter going to the role and culpability of the offender.

18.  Ms. Alva relies on HKSAR v Raman Kapusamy [2024] 2 HKLRD 955 where the Court of Appeal held that :

“60. …the international element is itself capable of taking a number of different forms and may not, therefore, lend itself to a standard or uniform enhancement. 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.”

19.  Ms. Alva reiterates that the Court of Appeal had repeated its remarks in Lee Ming Ho (supra.), that:

“65. …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 naivety or lack of education, fully appreciates 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.”

20.  Ms. Alva urges the court to consider the Defendant’s background, including that this was his first time aboard, and his coming from a low-income family with little education.  She also submits that the drugs syndicate behind did not tell the Defendant that the city has one of the stringent punishments for drug trafficking offences and in light of the above reasons, she asks the court to impose an increase of no more than 9 months.

21.  In considering the proper level of enhancement on account of the international element, I accept that this Defendant came from an impoverished country and a low-income family and this may well be his first time he travelled aboard but I do not accept that he is of little education and was not aware of the consequences if he was caught.  If he was truly naive into thinking that the offence he had committed was not that serious, there was no reason for him to keep denying to the customs officers everything including knowledge of any foreign objects inside him and his swallowing anything in the first place when he was intercepted at the airport.  Nothing was said by the Defendant to the customs officers as to why he was involved in this offence at all and to whom he is going to deliver the cocaine during the whole investigation.

22.  As Marcae V-P observed in Kilima Abubakar Abbas [2018] HKCA 602:

“87. …However, I do not accept that such couriers do not know fully what they are doing when they ingest a large and potentially fatal consignment of dangerous drugs and/or carry it half way across the world to Hong Kong, or that they are not aware of the severity of the consequences if they are caught. As I have said, many countries in this region employ the death penalty for drug trafficking and I am not at all persuaded that traffickers are unaware of that ultimate punishment in some of the countries through which they pass, or that the offence of drug trafficking carries very severe sentences of imprisonment in Hong Kong.”

23.  For a quantity as high as 1 kilogramme, it is not uncommon for the court to enhance the sentence by 2 years.  In this case, while I accept that the syndicate behind had, to some extent, exploited the Defendant’s poverty and stupidity and lured him into cross-border drug-trafficking, he was not that naive of the consequences of his misdeeds including swallowing a total of 134 pallets of cocaine into his body and travelled all the way from South America to Hong Kong after all.  I would therefore still increase the starting point by about 16 months from 17.91 years to 19 years and 3 months of imprisonment to properly reflect his role and culpability in this case.

24.  The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any further aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors.  I find neither any aggravating or any mitigating factors apply or exist in this case other than the Defendant’s timely plea at the earliest opportunity.

25.  The Defendant will be entitled to a discount of one-third from the starting point of 19 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.  Once that discount is applied, the sentence is reduced to 12 years and 10 months of imprisonment.

26.  The last step is to stand back and look at the overall sentence in order to ensure that it is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances, not only the offence but also the defendant. 

27.  In this case, the final sentence is of course harsh to the Defendant especially when he is a foreigner but at the same time, the offence he had committed is so serious and he should already consider himself lucky as unlike some of our neighbouring countries, we do not impose death penalty for drug trafficking.  In the end, it is a matter of choice and consequence and there is no reason to assume that the Defendant was unaware of the severe punishment he would receive once he is caught and convicted by the court in Hong Kong.  He took the chance and he was caught red-handed.  Now he must pay the price and he has only himself to blame. I have every sympathy for the Defendant’s two very young children who will be brought up with no father but the Court of Appeal had already held that family circumstances virtually play no part in the mitigation especially in serious cases such as drug-trafficking offence.  The final sentence I impose is only fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances.

ORDER

28.  Accordingly, the Defendant is sentenced to 12 years and 10 months of imprisonment.