COURT: On 9 February 2026, the defendant pleaded guilty before a Magistrate at the Eastern Magistracy to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs. As a result of his plea of guilty, he has been committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
In the charge, the defendant admitted that on 20 April 2024, at Customs Arrival Hall B, Passenger Terminal Building 1 of Hong Kong International Airport, Chek Lap Kok, Hong Kong, he unlawfully trafficked in 987 grammes of a solid containing 809 grammes of cocaine.
I turn now to deal with the facts.
The Summary of Facts dated 2 December 2025 was admitted by the defendant as correct and facts in support of the charge. On 20 April 2024, the defendant, a Tanzanian national, flew from Entebbe, Uganda to the Hong Kong International Airport via Doha.
The defendant was refused permission to land in Hong Kong by the Immigration Department. At the Customs Arrival Hall B, his luggage was X-rayed and no contraband was found. A subsequent search on the defendant also found no contraband.
As the defendant was suspected to have concealed drugs inside his body, he was subsequently conveyed to the North Lantau Hospital for examination. On 21 April 2024, at about 12.58 am, a medical officer at the North Lantau Hospital confirmed that foreign objects were detected in the defendant’s body upon an X-ray examination.
At about 1.00 am, the defendant was arrested and cautioned for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The defendant said that he did not know what were the foreign objects inside his body, that he ate those foreign objects in Uganda, that he would bring them to China and that he will have rewards, but he did not know how much. At about 1.56 am, the defendant excreted a total of 23 yellow plastic coated pellets.
Upon further verbal caution, the defendant said he did not know what those pellets were and that someone gave them to him in Uganda and he ate them. At about 2.30 am, Customs officers conducted a narcotic test on a sample of the white powder inside one of the aforesaid 23 pellets excreted by the defendant, which yielded a positive result for cocaine. The defendant was then transferred to Queen Elizabeth Hospital for further observation at about 5.33 am.
During the defendant’s stay at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital between 21 and 22 April, he excreted a total of 100 plastic coated pellets, containing the amount as stated in the charge. Cash in the sum of US$1,000, Tanzanian currency of 700, Ugandan currency of 500, a mobile phone and some hotel booking documents were seized from the defendant.
The estimated street value of the drugs of all the cocaine seized from the defendant was HK$742,224.
The defendant admits and accepts that he was knowingly in possession of all the cocaine seized in this case for the purposes of unlawful trafficking.
I turn now to the defendant’s mitigation and background.
Ms Cannise Chan, his counsel, has submitted written mitigation on behalf of the defendant. The defendant is a Tanzanian national. At the time of the offence, he was 38 years of age. He is now 40 years old. He is married, with two children, a daughter and son, aged 10 and 3 years old, respectively. The defendant is educated up to Primary 1 level.
The defendant’s father passed away in 2001. His mother lived alone but in the same community as the defendant. The defendant has one brother and two sisters who are all married with their own families. The defendant lived in Dar es Salaam with his family. From about 2021, he sold shoes, earning an average of about US$170 a month.
Ms Chan explains the reason for the defendant committing this offence was to pay for his mother’s proposed surgery, which would cost approximately US$5,000. His siblings and himself had low incomes and were therefore unable to meet his mother’s needs. The family could not afford to pay but was however able to pay 50 per cent of the sum before the surgery and the balance by instalments.
The defendant sought a loan from his friend but was declined. His friend however referred him to someone else called Peter, who told him that he could be offered a job but it would involve travelling overseas. The defendant did not immediately take up the job as he was hesitant. But as months passed and the family could not raise enough money for his mother’s medical expenses, he went to see Peter again.
The defendant was told he would be paid US$4,000 for a job, the nature of which he would know only after going to Uganda. Hearing and learning of the amount, the defendant gladly agreed. The defendant’s friend lent the defendant money to cover his travel and accommodation expenses for the Ugandan trip and the defendant set off to Uganda in February 2024.
One day before his departure to Hong Kong, a person called Tony told the defendant to ingest the pellets of drugs before he boarded the plane to Hong Kong. The defendant says he did not know exactly what kind of drugs they were. The defendant claims that he only realised that he was recruited as a drug courier one day before he left to Hong Kong.
He also learned that he would enter China after his arrival in Hong Kong. It is submitted by Ms Chan on behalf of the defendant that he told Customs officers that he agreed to bring these foreign objects into Hong Kong and China by ingesting them, and he was therefore all along cooperative with the law enforcement officers. The defendant has no previous convictions in Hong Kong.
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 [2020] 4 HKCA 150. The application of the principles and steps are as follows.
The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the relevant guideline band to the quantity of drugs concerned.
The revised tariff case for the drugs heroin, cocaine and ‘Ice’ is set out in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKCA 234. Pursuant to the tariff, where an amount trafficked is 809 grammes of cocaine, that falls within the bracket of between 500 and 1,500 grammes, attracting a starting point of between 16 years to 20 years’ imprisonment. Here, the amount of 800 grammes of cocaine, and by itself would arithmetically speaking attract a starting point of 17 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence, including the international element involved. The defendant imported these drugs into Hong Kong by ingestion. The importation into Hong Kong is referred to as the international element involved in the commission of this 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 offender’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 that 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. In this case, the defendant knowingly secreted the drugs inside his body.
The third step is to identify where in the relevant band the defendant comes, bearing in mind that it might be necessary to go outside and above the band given the circumstance of the offence and role of the defendant. Taking into account the third step of where the guidelines this defendant should lie, I consider that an appropriate starting point which includes the international element should be 19 years’ imprisonment.
The fourth and fifth step is a consideration of any aggravating and mitigating factors. In this case, there are no aggravating or personal mitigating factors. The most significant mitigating factor is the defendant’s plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity and he will benefit from a one-third discount to his sentence.
The starting point being 19 years’ imprisonment, that term shall be reduced to 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment to which you shall so serve.
The sixth step, I have observed and considered the overall sentence passed as fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
