HKSAR v. Nur Azimah Binti Abdullah and Another

HCCC 363/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2664

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 363 OF 2025

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: Defendant 1 and 2, you pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs on 16 October 2025 before a magistrate at the Eastern Magistracy. As a result of your pleas of guilty, you were committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

Defendants, you admitted that on 13 January 2024, at the Customs Arrival Hall at the Hong Kong International Airport, Chek Lap Kok, Hong Kong, you together with persons unknown unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug containing 20,590 grammes of a liquid containing 10,384 grammes of cocaine inside 12 glass bottles.

Regarding the Summary of Facts dated 15 October 2025, this was admitted by you and confirmed as correct and were facts in support of the charge. Both D1 and D2, you are Malaysian nationals who arrived in Hong Kong on 13 January 2024 on a flight from Kuala Lumpur. You were intercepted by Customs officers for customs clearance at the Customs Arrival Hall at the Hong Kong International Airport.

Upon search of D1’s suitcase, six wine bottles containing 10,270 grammes of a liquid containing 5,171 grammes of cocaine were found. Upon search of D2’s suitcase, six wine bottles with liquid containing 10,320 grammes of liquid containing 5,213 grammes of cocaine were found.

Upon arrest and under caution, D1 said she purchased the bottles of wine and had brought them to Hong Kong, intending to pass them to a friend. D2 said upon arrest and caution that he bought the bottles of wine and upon arrival in Hong Kong he would wait for a call from his friends and receive 3,000 Malaysian ringgit as a reward for delivery of the wine.

Upon initial confrontation, D1 claimed she did not know D2 whereas D2 confirmed that D1 was the female whom he called Wendy who travelled with him from Malaysia.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview, D1 maintained her account that she brought the wine to Hong Kong for her friend, and upon reselling of the wine, she would profit by 1,000 Malaysian ringgit a bottle.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview conducted with D2, he stated he met D1 through a WhatsApp group about half a year previously. D2 told D1 that he was in need of money, and she recommended him to make quick money by smuggling wine into Hong Kong. Prior to coming to Hong Kong, D1, otherwise known as Wendy, arranged for the two suitcases containing the bottles of red wine to be brought to them in a hotel near the airport in Kuala Lumpur. Upon arrival in Hong Kong, he and D1 would stay in the same hotel and wait for someone to collect the wine. He would wait for D1 to give him instructions as to who to hand over the bottles of wine to.

D1’s phone number was found in D2’s mobile phone. Upon examination of both defendants’ mobile phones, armed with a search warrant, the phone records showed communication between D1 and D2. The communication showed that D1 discussed the risk of job advertisements of smuggling wine by strangers. D2 said he worked under D1. D2 asked D1 to keep the trip to Hong Kong secret to avoid someone reporting him, and there was discussion about their trip to Hong Kong.

The estimated street value of the drugs in both suitcases amounted to HK$10,300,928.

I turn now to consider the background and mitigation of both defendants. D1 is now 40 years old. She was born in Malaysia. She has a clear criminal record in Hong Kong. She is divorced and has three children: two sons, aged 11 and 9, and a daughter aged 7 at the time of the offence. D1 has received up to Primary 1 education. She was a self-employed Grab driver in Malaysia, with a monthly income of about 5,000 ringgit.

She has diabetes and high blood pressure. Whilst on remand in Hong Kong, she has been hospitalised and received treatment and had an operation on 16 December 2025. I believe she had also an operation in March 2026. She suffers from recurrent depressive disorder.

In Mr Ching Wan-fung’s mitigation for the 1st defendant, he seeks leniency in view of her medical pain and suffering.

I have taken into account the contents of the letter from Pastor Pam Pei-ling, the psychiatric report stating that D1 suffers from recurrent depressive disorder, D1’s mitigation letter that she realises that her commission of this offence greatly affects not only herself but her children’s growth and her filial duty as a daughter to her 70-year-old mother who is suffering from cancer.

I received the letter from D1’s mother, informing the court that D1 is a kind-hearted, helpful and good daughter who is a single mother working hard to provide for her children without any assistance from their father.

I have a letter from Dr Anna Chan of Christian Living Word Life Fellowship. She is the Malaysian representative to assist Malaysian prisoners in Hong Kong. She met D1 on a number of occasions and says D1 is deeply remorseful and regrets her decision in bringing drugs into Hong Kong. I also have a letter from Father Wotherspoon.

I turn to D2’s mitigation. Ms Cindy Lee has mitigated on his behalf. He is aged 61 and Malaysian-born. He is divorced with two adult sons, aged 23 and 26. D2 is educated to Form 1 Secondary. For the past 40 years, he has been working as a carpenter, earning approximately four to five thousand ringgit a month. He has a clear criminal record in Hong Kong. He suffers from high blood pressure and requires consultation follow-up every three months.

As a result of financing his elder son’s marriage, D2 fell into debt as he borrowed money from his friends to finance the wedding expenses. He promised to repay his friends in around six months’ time and therefore looked for jobs, hoping to earn quick money. As a result, D2 came to know D1 whom he called Wendy.

D2 feels much regret in putting himself in this situation and fully understands that he is the only one to be blamed. Ms Cindy Lee has urged this court to exercise leniency on the defendants, particularly her client, D2, in view of his age, in sentencing him particularly regarding the international element.

I turn now to sentence. The approach to sentencing in drug‑trafficking cases are the ones laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and complemented in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150.

I turn to the application of the principle and steps that are as follows. The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. The revised tariff case for the drugs, heroin and cocaine, is set out in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKCA 234. Pursuant to the tariff laid down, where an amount trafficked is between 5,000 to 15,000 grammes, the Court of Appeal stated that the starting point should be between 24 years to 27 years’ imprisonment.

Here, the amount is 10,384 grammes of cocaine, and that by itself would, arithmetically speaking, attract a starting point of 25 years 6 months’ imprisonment.

The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence, including the international element involved. In considering the role, the defendants were, in this case, couriers importing the drugs into Hong Kong. This importation is referred to as the international element involved in the commission of the offence.

The Court of Appeal considered the international element in HKSAR v Raman Kapusamy [2024] 2 HKLRD 955. The international element is considered as part of the assessment of the defendant’s role and culpability. At paragraph 58, the court held that in relation to the international element, the greater the quantity, the more harm is caused by the quantity entering Hong Kong and being disseminated on our streets. At paragraph 59, the court said, “Quantity must, therefore, still play a role in any enhancement for the international factor.”

These two defendants knew there were drugs secreted in the liquid in the wine bottles they carried from Malaysia into Hong Kong. They were bringing into Hong Kong 10,000-odd grammes, that is 10 kilogrammes of cocaine, an extremely large amount.

The third step is to identify where in the relevant band the defendant came. Bearing in mind the factors in step 2 and given the circumstances of the offence and role of the defendants, I consider an appropriate starting point should be 27 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

The fourth step is to consider if there is any aggravating factors. I do not consider there to be any aggravating factors.

The fifth step is to consider all mitigating factors. Although both defendants suffer from illnesses, they are not mitigating factors. D2’s age of 61 is also not a mitigating factor. I bear in mind that in this particular branch of sentencing, that is trafficking in dangerous drugs, personal circumstances would generally count for little. The most significant mitigating factor are the defendants’ pleas of guilty at the earliest opportunity. In this, they will each benefit from a one-third discount to their sentence.

Defendants, please stand up. The starting point being 27 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, that term shall be reduced to 18 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, to which D1 and D2 shall serve.

The sixth step is to observe the overall sentence to be passed, and I consider the sentence imposed to be fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender.