HKSAR v. Yap, Ma Divina Pastora Valenzuela
Read the full judgment text of HCCC 41/2026 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 8 May 2026.
Cites 3 cases
|
HCCC 41/2026 [2026] HKCFI 3226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 41 OF 2026 -----------------
------------------
--------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording --------------------------------- COURT: These are my reasons for the sentence I am about to impose on you. The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted the Summary of Facts before the Eastern Magistracy on 22 January 2026. She was committed to this court for sentence. The charge alleges that on 1 August 2024, at a premises situated at the Basement, No. 43-45 High Street, Sai Ying Pun, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 22.37 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 22.37 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, more commonly known as ‘Ice’. The facts giving rise to the offence are these. At around 8.30 pm on 1 August 2024, police officers raided the flat, the subject of the charge. The flat comprised one living room, one kitchen, one storeroom, one washroom and two bedrooms, including the defendant’s bedroom. At the time of the police raid, the defendant and two other females were inside her own bedroom. In the defendant’s bedroom, the police officers found, upon search, inside a drawer in a cabinet the following items: one bowl containing, amongst other things, one resealable packet containing two resealable packets containing crystalline solid; one sanitary napkin pouch containing one green-lined resealable packet containing six resealable packets containing crystalline solids; one resealable packet marked with “1g” containing five resealable packets containing crystalline solids; one resealable packet marked with “200” containing six resealable packets containing crystalline solids; one resealable packet containing crystalline solids; a straw; a large amount of resealable packets; and one electronic scale. The defendant was thus arrested for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. In a subsequent video interview, the defendant stated the following: she and her son resided in the flat together with another family, and she rented the bedroom for HK$1,000 per month. The bedroom was occupied only by her and her son, and at the time of the raid, they were celebrating her son’s birthday, and there were guests in the flat. When shown a photo of the bedroom, she confirmed that it was her room, that all items inside the bedroom belonged to her and that the dangerous drugs were placed inside the bowl and the pouch. She said the drugs were hers and she kept them for selling. Her boyfriend owed a female some money and dangerous drugs but as he could not repay his debt and was in prison at the time, she agreed with the female that she would sell dangerous drugs for her. She purchased the dangerous drugs from the female for $3,000 per 14 grammes and would sell them at $400 per gramme. That female would pass the dangerous drugs to her at MTR station or at the staircase outside the flat. The money received from the sales of the dangerous drugs would be for her and her son’s own use. She did not consume the dangerous drugs herself. When shown a photo of the dangerous drugs seized, she confirmed that those were ‘Ice’ belonging to her, which she kept in the bowl and the pouch seized. When shown a photo of the bowl containing a resealable packet containing two resealable packets containing crystalline solids, she confirmed that it contained ‘Ice’. She last purchased dangerous drugs from the female on the Tuesday before she was arrested. When shown photographs of other dangerous drugs seized, she admitted that she had repackaged those items, and she recalled that the respective weight of those dangerous drugs was about 0.35 to 1.48 grammes each. The straw found in the room was used to scoop ‘Ice’ into the packets. The resealable packets were for containing the ‘Ice’ while the electronic scale was for weighing the ‘Ice’. She would repackage the dangerous drugs by scooping them using the straw, weighing them and placing them inside smaller packets. The buyers would call the defendant and they would arrange to meet at different places where she would pass the dangerous drugs to them personally, and those buyers were previously customers of her boyfriend. On forensic examination, it was subsequently confirmed that the items found inside the bedroom contained 22.37 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 22.37 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the subject matter of the charge. The total estimated street value of the ‘Ice’ seized was around HK$12,371. By her plea of guilty, the defendant now accepts and admits that at all material times, she knowingly possessed all of the dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. As I have detailed just now, she admitted in her cautioned video interview the extent of her involvement in the trafficking activity, including repackaging and selling of the dangerous drugs seized. The Defendant’s Background And Mitigation The defendant was 49 years old at the time of the offence and she is now 51 years of age. She is single. She was born in the Philippines and came to Hong Kong in 2001 to work as a domestic helper. She completed high school education in the Philippines. After coming into Hong Kong, the defendant met her boyfriend who is a Hong Kong resident, and they gave birth to a son in 2019. The son is now in the care of a residential home under the Social Welfare Department. The defendant is of clear criminal record in Hong Kong. In mitigation, it is said on her behalf that the defendant’s son suffers from medical condition with protrusion of his chest. As the defendant is now remanded in custody, she has no way of knowing or taking care of her son, and this is cause for grave concern on her part. The defendant herself does not suffer from any long-term illness and she is not a drug addict. Counsel for the defendant, Mr Chiu, further submitted that the defendant committed the present offence with a view to earning quick money in order to repay a loan for her boyfriend. She is remorseful, and it is emphasised that it was a small operation, and there is no indication that the defendant was working for a gang or a drug syndicate. It is urged on her behalf that the defendant’s involvement in repackaging and selling of the drugs, whilst an aggravating factor, should warrant as lenient an enhancement as possible. It is also submitted on her behalf that no other aggravating factor is present in this case. The court has received mitigation letters prepared by the defendant herself, the defendant’s boyfriend, her employer and a Reverend Father Rodolfo Jacobe Jr. In her own mitigation letter, the defendant expressed deep remorse, regretting what she had done, and expressed a strong desire to be reunited with her son as soon as it practically can. She also expressed her determination to guide her son in the right path so that he could become a useful member of the society in the future. The defendant’s boyfriend also wrote to plead for leniency on the defendant’s behalf. That boyfriend was incarcerated at the time of the defendant’s arrest, and he provided some insight as to why the defendant chose to be involved in such drug-trafficking activity. He explained the difficulty that the defendant faced whilst he was incarcerated himself, she being the only carer of their then two-year-old son. He informed the court that the defendant was a good mother, and the separation of the son from her would understandably pose difficulty to the son. As I have earlier on mentioned, the son is now under the care of a social welfare residential home. The defendant’s boyfriend also pleaded for lenient treatment of the defendant so that she would be able to rebuild her family and her life after her release from prison. The defendant’s employer also wrote on behalf of the defendant. It is said that the defendant was a pure-hearted and kind person and that she only took the wrong step due to the difficulty in her life. The employer also pleaded for leniency for the defendant. Finally, Reverend Father Rodolfo Jacobe Jr also wrote to plead for leniency for the defendant. He said that the defendant’s involvement arose from poor judgment, and she has now realised the consequences of her actions. The defendant hoped to return to society upon her release from prison by seeking employment back home in the Philippines to support her family. Whilst the court will obviously take these matters into account and in some way has sympathy on the defendant, especially her son, the relevance of these matters as indicating the defendant’s remorse would be subsumed under the discount that the court will give her for her early plea of guilty. In any event, it is well established that in cases such as this, personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are really exceptional, which I find not to be in the present case. Sentencing I now turn to the sentence. In sentencing the defendant, I do bear in mind the approach laid down by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as complemented by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186. This requires a six-step approach to sentencing. The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band or bracket applicable to the quantity of drugs involved. The narcotic contents of the dangerous drugs seized was 22.37 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. In HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the relevant sentencing band for a quantity of 22.37 grammes of ‘Ice’ is 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment. I consider that based on the quantity and type of drugs involved before any consideration of the defendant’s role in the offence, the overall starting point within this band of 7 years and 9 months would be an appropriate starting point. The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence before the court. As admitted by the defendant and as set out in the Summary of Facts, I find that the defendant’s role was higher than that of a mere courier or storekeeper. She admitted under caution that she had been involved in repackaging the dangerous drugs, and she gave detailed account as to how she weighed the drugs, scooping the drugs into separate packets using the straw, and that those drugs were for the purpose of sale. In light of these circumstances, it is my view that the defendant’s role should be higher than that of a mere courier or storekeeper, which would have to be reflected in the starting point for sentence. That brings me to the third step which is to identify where in the relevant band of sentencing guidelines the defendant comes. The guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs are based upon the role of a defendant as a courier or storekeeper. Accordingly, given my finding of the defendant’s role and culpability, I consider that a total overall starting point would be 8 years, meaning that I would enhance that starting point by 3 months to take account of her role and culpability as well as the circumstances which have been raised in mitigation that led to her being involved in the trafficking activity in question. In doing that, I accept counsel’s mitigation that she was involved only in a relatively small operation and there was no indication that she was working for a syndicate or a gang. The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which may bear on the notional sentence after trial. There are no aggravating features in this case which warrant a further enhancement of the notional sentence after trial. The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation. The only mitigating factor is the defendant’s timely plea. Her personal circumstances, as I said, count for little. Accordingly, I would allow the defendant the full one-third discount from the starting point that I have just identified, and the sentence is thus reduced to 5 years and 4 months; i.e. 64 months. The final step requires the court to stand back and look at the sentence to be imposed. I consider that the overall sentence of 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and of the defendant herself. Yes, defendant, you are sentenced to 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
|
