HKSAR v. SELEMANI JUMA SEIF

HCCC 445/2024

[2025] HKCFI 3027

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 445 OF 2024

________________

________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

The Charge

1.  On 19 December 2024, the defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The count involved 1.4 kilogrammes of a solid containing 1.02 kilogrammes of cocaine.  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 3 December 2024 and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed his guilty plea to the trafficking count and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.  The facts of the case can be summarized as follows. 

3.  On 5 December 2023, customs officers stopped the defendant for customs clearance at the arrival hall of the Hong Kong International Airport.  As the defendant was suspected to have concealed dangerous drugs in his body, he was escorted to the hospital for medical examination.  At the hospital, the doctor who examined the defendant found foreign objects concealed in his body cavity.  The defendant was arrested and taken to another hospital for further medical observation.  During his detention at the hospital, the defendant discharged from his body a total of 114 packets containing 1.4 kilogrammes of a solid containing 1.02 kilogrammes of cocaine.

4.  The defendant’s phone was inspected and it was revealed that he had exchanged messages with someone named “Badi” to arrange for this trip to Hong Kong; that he had reported his location and followed the instructions of “Badi”; that shortly before the defendant was intercepted by the customs officers, he had told another person that he had got off from the plane and that other person had told him that two short guys would be expecting him.

5.  An itinerary was seized from the defendant which showed that he had departed from Paris on 4 December 2023 and arrived in Hong Kong on 5 December 2023.  The defendant had a flight scheduled to depart from Hong Kong on 12 December 2023 and to return to Paris on 13 December 2023.

6.  The total estimated street value of the cocaine seized in this case was HK$1,279,600.

7.  In the Summary of Facts, the defendant also admitted that at all material times, he had unlawfully trafficked in all the dangerous drug seized.

Background andmitigation

8.  The defendant is now 50 years of age.  He was not born in Sweden but was granted asylum in Sweden where he lived and worked before his arrest for the subject offence.  The defendant is married and has a young child.  The child was born on 15 June 2023 and was only 6 months’ old when the defendant was arrested in Hong Kong.

9.  Counsel for the defendant, Mr. Davies, told the Court that at the material time, the defendant was under great financial and emotional distress.  His mother, wife and baby were all critically ill at the same time.  The mother was suffering breast cancer.  The wife became very ill following her pregnancy and was in a coma for three weeks after a caesarean operation.  The baby was also very ill.

10.  An acquaintance of the defendant thus persuaded him to commit the subject offence in order to ease his financial burdens.  The defendant committed the offence based on the instructions of “Badi” who had arranged for the round trips for the defendant and arranged someone else in Hong Kong to pick him up.  The defendant was acting as a courier in the whole scheme.

11.  Through his counsel, the defendant has submitted two letters in mitigation: one was written by himself in which he expressed his deep remorse for the offence; the other letter was written by his former employer who confirmed that the defendant was a genuinely kind and respectful individual who discharged his work duties with exceptional professionalism and integrity.

12.  Other than the blood relatives of the defendant and his wife, the defendant also supported six orphan children in Sweden financially by paying for their school fees.

13.  The defendant has no previous criminal convictions.

Sentence

14.  In sentencing the defendant, I will follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

15.  The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drug in question.  In the present case, Mr. Davies accepted that with the total quantity of 1.02 kilogrammes of cocaine, the starting point should be about 18 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 at §62.  That starting point is also confirmed by Ms Janice Kwan, counsel acting for the prosecution.

16.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court.  In short, as instructed by another person, the defendant concealed the dangerous drug in his body and brought them to Hong Kong.

17.  The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band the defendant should come.  In my assessment, the defendant’s role was that of a courier.

18.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  In the present case, the international element of the trafficking offence is an aggravating factor.  According to HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun [2014] 6 HKC 106, if there is an international element in the trafficking of dangerous drugs above 1,000 grammes, there should be an enhancement of at least 2 years; and for a quantity between 500 and 1,000 grammes, an enhancement of 1 year to 2 years.  Mr. Davies submitted that the sentencing levels were adjusted downwards by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, and the sentencing level now applicable to the defendant (i.e. 18 years) would have been imposed under the old levels for trafficking in a quantity of around 520 grammes of cocaine, thus attracting a lesser enhancement.  For that reason, Mr. Davies invited the Court to exercise its discretion by imposing a lesser enhancement of about one year.  In the particular circumstances of this case, I am prepared to act on the invitation of Mr. Davies.  I shall enhance the starting point by only one year to 19 years’ imprisonment to reflect this aggravating factor.

19.  The fifth step is to consider the mitigating factors, if any.  Given the seriousness of the trafficking offence, the only 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 overall sentence down from 19 years to 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

20.  Lastly, I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years and 8 months.

Exhibits

21.  Order in terms of the Prosecution’s application, not objected to by the Defence, was granted.