COURT: Defendant, you pleaded guilty before a magistrate at the Eastern Magistracy to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs on 3 July 2025. As a result of your plea of guilty, you have been committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
You have admitted in the charge that on 28 November 2023, at the Customs Arrival Hall A, Passenger Terminal 1, Hong Kong International Airport, you unlawfully trafficked in 471.3 grammes of a solid containing 368.4 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. The Summary of Facts dated 20 June 2025 was admitted by you as correct.
I now turn to the facts of this case. On 28 November 2023, the defendant flew from Kuala Lumpur to the Hong Kong International Airport. At about 8.58 pm, after his arrival, he was intercepted by a customs officer at the Customs Arrival Hall A in the green channel stating he had nothing to declare. Search of the defendant’s luggage found no contraband. A subsequent search on the defendant found bags of drugs wrapped around his legs and bags of substance concealed inside his socks and shoes.
Under caution, he admitted that the bags contained illicit drugs which he collected from a locker in a shopping mall in Kuala Lumpur and he concealed them around his body. The defendant said that he brought the drugs to Hong Kong for a reward of Malaysian Ringgit 10,000 and someone was to contact him in Hong Kong.
The defendant further admitted that he had concealed pellets of the drugs inside his body. Medical examination at the North Lantau Hospital confirmed that foreign objects were detected inside the defendant’s body. Under caution, the defendant said the objects inside his body were illicit drugs No. 4, which he collected from a locker in a shopping mall in Kuala Lumpur.
The defendant was later transferred to Queen Elizabeth Hospital. From around 7 am on 29 November to around 11 am on 30 November 2023, the defendant discharged from his body 31 pellets containing drugs. The total amount of drugs in the 31 pellets and the drugs wrapped around his legs and inside his socks and shoes was the amount as stated in the charge.
Cash in the sum of HK$3,120, Malaysian Ringgit of 108.50, and two iPhones and an Itel mobile phone were further found from the defendant. The defendant’s Itel mobile phone contained inter alia:
(a) message records showing the defendant’s discussion with another person regarding the defendant’s flight tickets and the defendant’s accommodation in Hong Kong;
(b) e-mail records of the flight itinerary of the defendant showing that he was scheduled to depart on 20 November 2023 from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong and return on 30 November 2023;
(c) photographs of blocks of substance wrapped by kraft papers and silvery foil.
The estimated street value of all the drugs seized from the defendant was $381,753.
The defendant admits and accepts that he was knowingly in possession of all the heroin hydrochloride seized in this case for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
I turn now to the background and mitigation. Mr Lawrence Hui, counsel for the defendant, submitted written mitigation on the defendant’s behalf. The defendant is a Malaysian national. At the time of the offence, he was 31 years of age and is now 34 years old. He has a clear record in Hong Kong. Save for his employment as a renovation worker prior to commission of this offence, the defendant has not provided any other personal background information. There is also nothing before the court explaining the reason for the commission of this offence. What can be gleaned is that the defendant knowingly imported these drugs into Hong Kong for monetary gain. It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that upon interception, he told customs officers that he ingested and concealed drugs and he was therefore all along cooperative with the law enforcement officers.
I turn now to sentence. The approach to sentencing in drug trafficking cases are the ones laid out 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 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 368.4 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, that falls within the bracket of between 200 and 500 grammes, attracting a starting point of between 12 to 16 years’ imprisonment. The present amount of heroin hydrochloride by itself would attract a starting point of 14 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 ingestion and concealing the drugs wrapped around his body and in his socks and shoes. He was a cross-border drug trafficker transporting heroin hydrochloride into Hong Kong from Malaysia. This 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 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 the quantity entering Hong Kong and being disseminated on our streets. At paragraph 59, the court said the quantity must therefore still play a role in any enhancement for the international factor.
In Lee Ming Ho, the Court of Appeal referred to the case of HKSAR v Fong Yau Heung [2022] 2 HKLRD 99, paragraph 23, where Zervos JA said:
“The courts in Hong Kong have long recognised that the importation of dangerous drugs is a serious aggravation of the offence of drug trafficking because it involves the international smuggling of the quantity of drugs imported finding its way into the local drug market and putting the people and the community at risk of substantial harm.”
Later, he repeated at paragraph 34:
“It is clear from our review of the authorities that the importing or exporting of the drugs is regarded more seriously than the usual dealing of drugs locally. Importing drugs into Hong Kong fuels the local drug market and has serious and deleterious consequences to the people and the community of Hong Kong. Exporting drugs from Hong Kong has the same effect on the receiving jurisdiction which is regarded with the same level of seriousness as if imported in accordance with international comity.”
In this case, the defendant knowingly secreted the drugs inside and on the outside of his body and his socks and shoes.
The third step is to identify where in the relevant band the defendant comes. Given the circumstances of the offence and role of the defendant and the international element in importing these drugs into Hong Kong, I consider an appropriate starting point should be 15 years’ imprisonment, that is an enhancement of 12 months’ imprisonment.
The fourth and fifth step is a consideration of any aggravating or mitigating factors. 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 15 years’ imprisonment, that term shall be reduced to 10 years imprisonment for which the defendant 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 defendant.
