HKSAR v. SCHOEMAN MARY WILSON

CACC 254/2025 [2026] HKCA 1411

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 3018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 254 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 78 OF 2024)

_______________

_______________

__________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

__________________________________

Hon Zervos JA (giving the Reasons for Judgment of the Court):

1.  The appellant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap 134).  On 2 October 2024, she was sentenced in the High Court by Barnes J (the judge) to 16 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

2.  On 8 July 2025, the appellant applied for leave to appeal against sentence out of time, on the sole ground that her sentence should be reduced under the revised guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3)[1].  The respondent indicated that it did not oppose the application.[2]  Accordingly, the Single Judge granted the appellant an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence.[3]

3.  At the conclusion of the hearing, we allowed the appellant’s appeal against sentence.  We set aside her previous sentence of 16 years and 5 months’ imprisonment and substituted in its place a sentence of 14 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.  These are our reasons.

The agreed facts[4]

4.  On 25 November 2022, the appellant was intercepted by Customs officers at Hong Kong International Airport after arriving on a flight from Doha, Qatar.  Inside a suitcase and a briefcase that she was carrying, the officers found concealed dangerous drugs, subsequently confirmed to comprise a total of 2,857 grammes of a solid containing 2,455 grammes of cocaine.  The flight record showed that she had flown from Luanda, Angola, to Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 17 November 2022 and from Sao Paulo to Doha on 23 November 2022.

5.  Although initially denying that she had committed the offence in her caution statements after arrest and during a video-recorded interview, the appellant eventually admitted that she knew of the dangerous drugs and possessed them for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.  The estimated street value of the cocaine was HK$2,382,738.

The sentence

6.  The appellant was 45 years old when sentenced. She had a clear record in Hong Kong.  In mitigation, it was submitted on her behalf that the appellant committed the offence due to severe financial difficulties. As for her role and culpability, it was contended that she was no more than a courier.  In addition to her timely guilty plea, the appellant had contributed to Father Wotherspoon’s anti-drug campaign.  She had also provided information that had been conveyed to various overseas authorities, including the countries where she had been recruited as a drug mule and where the drugs had originated.[5]

7.  Applying the six-step approach in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[6], the judge first identified the sentencing band under HKSAR v Abdallah[7], the prevailing guidelines at the time.  The starting point for trafficking in 2,455 grammes of cocaine fell within the band of 1,200 to 4,000 grammes, with a sentencing range of 23 to 26 years’ imprisonment.  The judge accepted that the appellant was a mere courier, but there was an international element, in that she had imported cocaine into Hong Kong from overseas.  Accordingly, she arrived at a starting point of 25 years.  The arithmetic starting point under the previous guidelines for 2,455 grammes of cocaine was 24 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.  By adopting a starting point of 25 years’ imprisonment, the judge appears to have enhanced the sentence by 8 months for the international element.  In addition to the full one-third discount for her timely plea, the judge allowed an additional reduction of 3 months for her contribution to Father Wotherspoon’s campaign. After these reductions, the sentence became 16 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.[8]

The ground of appeal

8.  The appellant relies on the revised sentencing guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3) and submits that she is entitled to have her sentence reduced. 

9.  Mr Matthew Hui, for the respondent, submitted that under the revised guidelines, trafficking in between 1,500 grammes and 5,000 grammes of cocaine corresponds to a starting point of 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment.  For 2,455 grammes of cocaine, this would result in a starting point of 21 years and 1 month’s imprisonment, which was 3 years and 3 months lower than the arithmetic starting point under Abdallah, namely 24 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.  Mr Hui submitted that, after the one-third discount for the timely guilty plea, the difference between the sentences under the previous and revised guidelines would be around 2 years and 2 months.[9]

10.  That was the extent of the respondent’s submission, which did not address the application of the relevant sentencing principles to the facts and circumstances of the case with respect to the revised guidelines.  Just as the prosecution acts as a “minister of justice” to assist the trial court with sentencing, the respondent must fulfil this same role on appeal.  Under the revised guidelines, this requires a fresh appraisal of all relevant factors in accordance with current sentencing principles. 

Discussion

11.  We are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the revised sentencing guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3). We are therefore required to sentence the appellant afresh by applying the revised sentencing guidelines and the current sentencing principles.  Following the six-step approach, we have accordingly assessed the sentence at 22 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.  This takes into account the appellant’s role and culpability, including the international element, involving the appellant travelling from Africa to South America, where she collected the drugs, through the Middle East to Hong Kong. 

12.  The notional sentence of 22 years and 6 months’ imprisonment is reduced by one-third for the appellant’s guilty plea to 15 years’ imprisonment.  We then gave a further reduction of 6 months to arrive at a final sentence of 14 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.  The 6 months’ reduction consisted of 2 months for the appellant’s participation in Father Wotherspoon’s anti-drug campaign.  The remaining 4 months were given because information the appellant had provided about the persons who recruited her in South Africa was confirmed in writing by the South African authorities to be of assistance, as it provided valuable insight into the workings of the drug syndicate in relation to the recruitment and deployment of couriers in South Africa.[10]

Conclusion

13.  We allowed the appellant’s appeal against sentence, set aside the sentence of 16 years and 5 months’ imprisonment and substituted in its place a sentence of 14 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

[1]  HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

[2]  The respondent has also conceded the substantive appeal.

[3]  Macrae VP.

[4]  Appeal Bundle (“AB”), pp 3-6, Summary of Facts, at [1]-[8].

[5]  AB, pp 14, 15, 17 and 18; Written Mitigation Submission, at [4], [9], [14] and [15], and AB, pp 22-31, Mitigation Letter.

[6]  HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

[7]  HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437.

[8]  AB, pp 9N-10H.

[9]  Respondent’s Written Submission dated 18 November 2025, at [9]-[15].

[10]  AB, p 31.