HKSAR v. TSUI HOI TUNG

HCCC 355/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 355 OF 2025

________________

________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

The Charge

1.  On 13 October 2025, 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 charge involved 23,679 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 23,679 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 10 October 2025 and she was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed her guilty plea to the trafficking charge and her admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

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

3.  On 12 June 2023, an inbound air consignment originating from Mexico was examined by Customs officers at the Customs Import Cargo Examination Hall of the Hong Kong International Airport.  Inside the consignment, they found the quantity of “ICE” as set out in the charge.

4.  A Customs officer made a call under disguise to the consignee’s phone number and spoke to a male, and they arranged for the delivery to be made.  However, the male altered the collection point and later said that he was not available to collect the consignment.

5.  On the next day (i.e. 13 June 2023), a Customs officer contacted the male who confirmed that he would collect the consignment at a location in Yeung Sui Hang Village.   A Customs officer under disguise delivered the consignment to the location as arranged.  Upon arrival, he called the male and the male told him that his female colleague would come to collect the consignment.  

6.  Later, the defendant turned up at the location and approached the Customs officer.  She inspected the carton boxes, verified the content of the delivery order and signed to acknowledge receipt of the goods.

7.  After the Customs officer had helped the defendant unload the goods, he revealed his Customs identity and arrested the defendant.  Under caution, she stated, inter alia, that a person had asked her to collect the consignment and she would wait for her friend’s instructions; that she merely helped her friend to collect the consignment and she had not received any reward for that.

8.  As the defendant indicated her willingness to assist, a further controlled delivery was mounted immediately.  That failed however as the defendant could no longer reach her contacts.  

9.  In her two cautioned video recorded interviews, the defendant stated, inter alia, that:

(i) Her friend “Lam” had asked her to collect the goods and instructed her to sign and acknowledge receipt of the goods when requested by the delivery driver. Another person then called her and asked her to call him after receiving the goods. Lam had said he did not know who that other person was, but Lam had told her that other person would find someone to collect the goods from her;

(ii) The WhatsApp messages between the defendant and Lam were inspected during the interview. In those messages, the defendant had asked why the consignment was returned, and Lam had said that the defendant’s boyfriend had messed up, and that it was dangerous and hence it was returned. The defendant asked how her boyfriend had messed up and Lam said that he was asked not to find other people but he did so, so the other party thought he was a “ghost”;

(iii) The defendant had also sent a message stating that she was afraid that her friend would know what was inside the parcel, as the friend had helped to purchase scales and bags etc., and then the friend was asked to collect the goods. The defendant was worried that the parcel contained illegal things;

(iv) Lam had talked to her about illegal things and so she was afraid that the consignment contained illegal things; and

(v) When the defendant and Lam were talking, Lam had talked about dangerous drugs. The defendant thought that they were Lam’s work.

10.  The Government Chemist confirmed that the dangerous drugs contained in the consignment were a total of 23,679 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 23,679 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

11.  The estimated retail value of all the dangerous drugs seized was HK$11,815,821.

12.  In the Summary of Facts, the defendant admitted that she unlawfully trafficked in the dangerous drugs seized in the present case.

Background andmitigation

13.  The defendant was only 17 years old at the time of the offence and is now 20 years of age.

14.  She is the only child in her family and before her arrest, she was living with her parents. Her father is a salesman and her mother is a homemaker.

15.  The defendant studied up to the second term of Form Five when she withdrew from school due to heavy academic pressure. She then joined the workforce as an apprentice in a dessert and coffee shop, earning approximately HK$15,700 per month.

16.  The defendant has no previous criminal record.

17.  Counsel acting for the defendant, Mr. Lau, submitted in mitigation that the defendant was only 17 years old at the time of the offence and as such, she lacked social experience and mature judgment, rendering her highly susceptible to exploitation by those operating behind the scene. She merely acted as the local recipient at the lowest-level in the trafficking operation, essentially as a “runner” acting on instructions.

18.  Mr. Lau urged the Court not to consider the “international element” in the present case to enhance the starting point for sentencing, as the defendant had believed the parcel to have come from “Taobao”.  Given that she was only aged 17 at the time, receiving local parcels from Taobao is entirely consistent with the daily expectations and lifestyle of a local teenager.  Mr. Lau submitted that the defendant merely thought that she was to collect some “Taobao” goods but never thought about their origin.  The Court was also told that she was completely unaware of the true origin of the drugs (i.e., Mexico).

19.  The Defence also submitted four mitigation letters written by the defendant, her parents, her secondary school class teacher, and a director of Tung Wah Group of Hospitals respectively. Mr. Lau submitted that these letters, together with her school reports, demonstrate that the defendant is kind-hearted, quiet, respectful, and she had no disciplinary issues at school.  She actively participated in extracurricular activities and held roles such as class committee member, secretary of the Hong Kong Award for Young People Scheme, and secretary and chairperson of the Home Economics Society.

20.  During her remand period, the defendant experienced significant family hardship.  Her grandfather, to whom she was very close, passed away in May 2025 and she was unable to attend his funeral due to her detention.  Further, her mother has been diagnosed with breast cancer and is currently undergoing treatment.  

21.  Mr. Lau submitted that these experiences have led to profound reflection.  Whilst in custody, the defendant has not given up on herself but has instead engaged in self-improvement.  She has completed the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education, as well as various courses including a Basic Food Hygiene Certificate for Hygiene Managers, a short psychology course, and a Bible course. She has also applied to enrol in a business degree programme. Mr. Lau submitted that these actions demonstrate her determination to rehabilitate herself and prepare for reintegration into the society, with the aim of becoming self-reliant and fulfilling her responsibility to care for her parents.

22.  Mr. Lau also submitted that after her arrest, the defendant made admissions to Customs officers and explained her role in the trafficking operation.  She also voluntarily provided her mobile phone and the password to Customs officers for investigation.  She had agreed to participate in a further controlled delivery and she attempted to call her contacts but her calls were unanswered.  Notwithstanding her genuine efforts to assist the authorities, that failed and did not lead to the arrest of other individuals.

23.  In light of the defendant’s attempted participation in the controlled delivery and her full cooperation, Mr. Lau invited the Court to grant her additional reduction beyond the one-third discount.

Sentence

24.  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.

25.  The tariffs for sentencing an offence of trafficking in methamphetamine hydrochloride (“ICE”) are set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.   For ICE with a quantity between 15,000 grammes and 30,000 grammes, the starting point is 27 to 30 years’ imprisonment (§66 of the Judgment).   Given the quantity of ICE involved in the present case, the notional starting point in sentencing is about 28 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

26.  Turning to the role and culpability of the defendant.  Having considered the Summary of Facts and heard from Mr. Lau, I am satisfied that the defendant’s role was merely to act as the local recipient of the consignment who after collection was to pass it on to someone else for further disposal.  

27.  Turning to aggravating factors.  Whilst the dangerous drugs in question were imported into Hong Kong via the inbound consignment from Mexico, I am prepared to give the benefit of doubt to the defendant and to find that she was not aware that the consignment had come from Mexico.  There is also no evidence to show that the defendant had in any way been involved in the import of the consignment into Hong Kong.  I am prepared to accept the submissions of Mr. Lau that given her young age and naivety, she merely thought that she was to collect some “Taobao” goods but never thought about their origin.  I will therefore not enhance the starting point by virtue of the “international element”.

28.  It is trite that for an offence as serious as the present one, personal background counts for very little, if any.   Given the seriousness of the offence, the real and strong mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is her guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, she is entitled to a full one-third discount.  

29.  In HKSAR v Smit Hector Edward [2017] 1 HKLRD 287, the Court of Appeal was prepared to grant an additional discount of approximately 4.5% on top of the usual one-third discount (total reduction of 37.85%) when in that case the controlled delivery operation was unsuccessful, but the defendant had given sincere and proactive assistance and was not responsible for the failure of the operation.

30.  In the present case, I am satisfied that the defendant did try her best to cooperate with Customs officers in attempting the further controlled delivery although it failed and did not lead to the arrest of her accomplices or the mastermind.   For that cooperation and in light of her background and mitigations, I am prepared to apply a total discount of 40% to the starting point of 28 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, which will result in a final sentence of 17 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

31.  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 a term of imprisonment for 17 years and 2 months.