COURT: Defendant pleaded guilty on 3 July 2025 before a magistrate at the Eastern Magistracy to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. As a result of his plea of guilty, he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
The defendant admitted that on the 3rd day of October, 2023, at the Hong Kong International Airport, Chek Lap Kok, Hong Kong, he unlawfully trafficked in 1,990 grammes of a solid containing 1,665 grammes of cocaine.
The Summary of Facts dated 26 June 2025 was admitted by the defendant as correct. The facts are as follows. On 3 October 2023, the defendant arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport on a flight from Kuala Lumpur. At about 12.48, shortly after his arrival, he was intercepted by a customs officer at the Green Channel. Upon interception, the customs officer asked the defendant his point of embarkation in Cantonese. The defendant replied in Cantonese that he had come to visit friends.
Upon an X-ray examination of the defendant’s luggage, customs officers discovered some anomalies and conducted further luggage examination. Upon further inquiries from the customs officers, they(the defendant?) confirmed to the defendant(them?) in Putonghua that the suitcase and the pouch belonged to him. The defendant gave the customs officers a key from the pouch to open the padlock of the suitcase. Found in the suitcase were six boxes of purported “Agar-Agar Powder”. Inside each box contained 10 packets. Upon opening one of the packets, the customs officers found it contained suspected drugs.
It was later confirmed that each of the 60 packets contained drugs, and the total amount of drugs in these 60 packets were the amount as stated in the charge. There were amounts of between 273 to 282 grammes of cocaine in each box.
Under caution, the defendant stated the boxes were tea powder and were given to him by a friend in Malaysia to pass them to the friend’s friend in Hong Kong. The defendant said he would receive a reward of MYR8,000. Cash in the sum of HK$2,360 and MYR399, two mobile phones (that is one iPhone and a Huawei phone) were further found from the defendant.
Following the defendant’s arrest, the defendant agreed to assist the customs officers in a controlled-delivery operation.
The defendant asserted that he would bring the six boxes to a hotel in Tin Shui Wai and pass them to another person pending the instructions from a female named Cookie who had communicated with him by WeChat. The defendant provided his password to the iPhone to the customs officers.
At 3.30 pm, the defendant arrived at the Harbour Plaza Resort Hotel in Tin Shui Wai where he had a reservation from 3 to 6 October 2023 and entered Room 552. He then began communicating with Cookie about handing over the stuff he had brought to Hong Kong to a customer. Cookie failed to provide the arrival time of the customer. As the defendant had waited almost a day for someone to collect the stuff, on 4 October, he told Cookie he could wait no longer for someone to come to collect it. Cookie told him to leave it at the hotel. Cookie also told him there was nothing to worry about as it was only porcupine powder and there was nothing illegal in it.
On 4 October, at about 3.30 pm, the defendant informed the customs officers that he no longer wished to participate in the controlled delivery. He told the customs officer that the last time he came to Hong Kong on 16 September 2023 to deliver something “bad”, he did not have to wait long. Approximately half an hour, someone had collected the stuff. As he had waited a long time this time, he was of the opinion that no one would come to collect the stuff as it had not been picked up in two days. The customs officers agreed to terminate the controlled-delivery operation.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview under caution conducted on 5 October 2023, the defendant claimed, amongst other things, that:
(1) His purpose of coming to Hong Kong was to deliver tea contained in the boxes for his friend.
(2) He did not know the full name, address nor occupation of his friend. Only that his friend’s name was Cookie.
(3) Cookie was a female who lived in Japan and was in her early 30s.
(4) He had been to Hong Kong previously to deliver stuff for Cookie.
(5) On this occasion, a male person met the defendant to pass the stuff to him, which was put inside six boxes of flower powder for making tea.
(6) For this time, Cookie would arrange her friend to pick up the boxes at the hotel.
The estimated street value of all the drugs seized from the defendant was HK$1,974,080.
The defendant now admits and accepts that he knowingly imported the cocaine seized into Hong Kong.
I turn now to the background and mitigation. Mr Lawrence Hui, counsel for the defendant, submitted written mitigation on the defendant’s behalf and submitted three letters of mitigation written by the defendant, his sister and brother.
The defendant is a Malaysian national. He is now 29 years old. He has a clear record in Hong Kong. He is single. He has two elder sisters and one younger sister and an elder brother. He lived with his siblings and his girlfriend. His parents divorced when he was about 2 years old. Thereafter, his father became the sole financial provider for the defendant and his siblings.
Subsequently, his father sustained injuries at work, resulting in a significant deterioration of the family’s financial means. As a result, the defendant left school before completing junior secondary education and entered the workforce. The defendant had only studied up to therefore primary secondary level.
The defendant was employed as a driver, earning approximately MYR2,500 per month which was equivalent to approximately HK$4,150. He took up the financial burden towards his family, reflecting his sense of responsibility.
In the defendant’s mitigation letter, he stated that whilst serving as a ride-hailing driver, he misplaced his trust in the friends he met and out of momentary greed fell into the web of the law, which he will regret for the rest of his life. He regrets that he has caused his family to worry and to have failed to have shouldered his responsibility of taking care of his family, especially his elderly father. He feels deeply ashamed. He fully accepts the consequences brought about by his grave mistake and hopes to shoulder the responsibility of taking care of his family and being a filial and dutiful son upon his release.
His siblings state that the defendant has been a responsible person and is not a bad person by nature but made a serious mistake. Whatever the consequences, they will continue to guide, support and supervise the defendant to ensure he returns to the right path.
It is submitted by Mr Hui that a further discount above the one-third should be given to the defendant as he agreed to assist in the controlled-delivery operation.
I turn now to sentence. The approach in 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.
The application of the principles and the steps 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, 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 1,665 grammes of cocaine, that falls within the bracket of between 1,500 and 5,000 grammes, attracting a starting point of between 20 years to 24 years’ imprisonment. The present amount of cocaine by itself would attract a starting point of 20 years’ 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 concealing them as “Agar-Agar Powder” inside his suitcase on instructions of a person known as Cookie. He was a cross-border drug trafficker transporting a large amount of cocaine into Hong Kong from Malaysia. The importation 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 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.”
The third step is to identify where in the relevant band the defendant comes. Given the circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant and taking into account the international element, that is that the defendant imported these drugs into Hong Kong, I consider that an appropriate starting point should be 22 years’ imprisonment. That is a 2-year enhancement for the international element of importing this large quantity of drugs.
The fourth and fifth step is a consideration of any aggravating and mitigating factors. There are no aggravating or personal mitigating factors. I accept, as Mr Hui has submitted, that there are two main mitigating factors in this case. The first and 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 second being his assistance to the authorities in participating in the controlled-delivery operation.
In the case of HKSAR v Lo Sze Tung, Stephanie [2019] 1 HKC 309, the Court of Appeal stated that the defendants who made a genuine attempt to assist the authorities should be entitled to a discount of between 33.3 per cent and 40 per cent on a plea of guilty. It stated the 33.3 per cent to 40 per cent rate of sentencing discount allowed the court to award a discount to a defendant who made a genuine attempt to assist the authorities. His assistance had been helpful but, for one reason or another, it was not assessed to be of particularly great value.
I found the defendant’s assistance to be genuine, and in the circumstances, he should be afforded a further reduction to his sentence to reflect his assistance, although it was not a successful controlled delivery.
The starting point being 22 years’ imprisonment, taking into account your plea of guilty at the first opportunity and the assistance you provided to the customs in the controlled delivery, that sentence should be reduced to 13 years and 3 months’ imprisonment which you shall serve.
In 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.
