HKSAR v. TCHANILE ADAMOU AMOUSSATOU

HCCC 90/2025

[2026] HKCFI 846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 90 OF 2025

______________________

______________________

_______________

S E N T E N C E

_______________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 13 March 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed her plea and her agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of the charge state that on 9 December 2023 at Consultation Room 12, Accident and Emergency Department, North Lantau Hospital, No. 8 Chung Yan Road, Lantau Island, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 654 grammes of a solid containing 534 grammes of cocaine.

3.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows.  On 8 December 2023, the defendant arrived in Hong Kong from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia via Doha, Qatar on flights ET432 and QR816 respectively.  At about 2352 hours on that day, the defendant, accompanied by airport ground staffer, a Mr Chan, arrived at the Red Channel of Customs Arrival Hall B, Hong Kong International Airport.  Mr Chan told Custom Officer 18589 that the defendant’s check-in baggage, which contained dutiable goods, namely, a bottle of wine, was delayed and had not yet arrived in Hong Kong.  Customs Officer 18589 thus conducted examination of all personal belongings carried by the defendant with no contraband found.

4.  At about 0200 hours on 9 December 2023, the defendant was brought to North Lantau Hospital for medical examination. X-ray check was performed on the defendant which revealed that there were foreign objects inside the defendant’s body.  The defendant was cautioned by Customs Officer 18589.  The defendant replied “don’t understand” and said something in a foreign language which Customs Officer 18589 did not understand.  The defendant was cautioned again.  She replied “not understand”.

5.  At about 0435 hours on 9 December 2023, Customs Officer escorted the defendant to Queen Elizabeth Hospital.  At about 1130 hours on 9 December 2023, medical officer conducted medical inspection on the defendant and found that there was a pellet of dangerous drugs in the defendant’s vagina.  Customs Officer 18549 cut open the pellet and conducted a narcotics test on the contents of the pellet, which yielded positive result to cocaine. 

6.  Between 1325 hours and 2210 hours on 9 December 2023, the defendant further discharged a total of 40 pellets of dangerous drug.  A total of 41 pellets of dangerous drug were discharged and seized from the defendant.

7.  On 10 December 2023, a cautioned statement was obtained from the defendant with the assistance of a French interpreter. Under caution, the defendant refused to answer any questions put to her. 

8.  Three mobile phones, five SIM cards and one SD card were seized from the defendant. Upon the strength of search warrant and with the defendant’s consent and provision of the passwords of her mobile phone, Customs Officer 18549 conducted manual screening of the defendant’s mobile phones.  Suspicious WhatsApp conversations in French between the defendant and a person saved as “Johnson” were found to have taken place between 2158 hours on 8 December 2023 and 0000 hours on 9 December 2023.  The translated messages appeared to suggest that the defendant had problems getting past immigration, and that the defendant had lost her handbag.  In the end, Johnson asked the defendant to leave her handbag behind and leave immediately.  Johnson had also sent the defendant a flight booking record under the defendant’s name and a booking record of a motel in Hong Kong under the defendant’s name. 

9.  US$1,000 was seized from the defendant upon arrest.

10.  The dangerous drug seized from the defendant was sent to the Government Laboratory for examination, which confirmed that the dangerous drug was a total of 41 packets containing 654 grammes of a solid containing 534 grammes of cocaine.

11.  The estimated retail value of the dangerous drug seized from the defendant was HK$597,756.

12.  Regarding the personal background of the defendant, the defendant is a Beninese national.  She was born on 1 January 1981.  She is currently 44 years of age.  I am told that the defendant is a single mother of two children.  Her son is 11 years old and her daughter is 3 years old.  The defendant grew up in a large family and is one of eight siblings or step‑siblings.  The defendant attained education up to secondary level.  Prior to her arrest, she worked as an executive assistant with the Benin government, namely the Ministry of Health, with a monthly income equivalent to around HK$2,800.  She also worked part-time to supplement her income as an online salesperson, earning roughly HK$3,900 per month.  The defendant struggled to provide for her two children as a single mother and this led to the commission of the present offence.

13.  I am told that the defendant bitterly regrets her decision to commit the offence and is remorseful.  Her children have been passed from carer to carer since her arrest, and the defendant is very much concerned for their welfare without her care.  She hopes to be released as soon as possible once her sentence is served so that she can be reunited with her family. 

14.  Prior to the present offence, the defendant had a clear criminal record in Hong Kong.

15.  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 the 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 aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind however 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”.

16.  Regarding the first step, for 534 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.

17.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a courier, in that she brought the drugs from Ethiopia to Hong Kong.  However, this case clearly involves an international element.  This is an important factor when assessing the role and culpability of defendant 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, 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.

18.  Third, for 534 grammes of cocaine, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a notional sentence after trial of 16 years and 1.6 months’ imprisonment.  For the international element of this case as held above, I would increase the notional sentence after trial by 12 months, taking it to 17 years and 1.6 months’ imprisonment.

19.  Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating factors which would enhance the notional sentence after trial.

20.  Fifth, as a matter of discretion, I would afford the defendant a discount of 2 months for her participation in Father Wotherspoon’s programme.  This would take the notional sentence after trial down to 16 years and 11.6 months’ imprisonment. 

21.  I consider that the only other mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is her timely guilty plea, for which I will give her a one-third discount.  Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reduced to 11 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

22.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 11 years and 3 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just, and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of the defendant.

23.  The defendant is accordingly sentenced to 11 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.