HKSAR v. Chow Yan Yu (also known as Chow Poon Kan) and Another

DCCC 1546/2025

[2026] HKDC 824

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1546 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.In this case the defendants have pleaded guilty to a single charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, which is contrary to Section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

2.The particulars of facts showed that this was the trafficking by way of importation of 9,801 grammes of herbal cannabis through the airport on 27 October 2024.  Facts are quite extensive but they do show, in outline, that the defendants landed in Hong Kong from Bangkok on a CX flight on the evening of 27 October 2024 and they were put under observation by Customs & Excise.

3.After landing, the defendants separated eventually, the 1^st defendant to retrieve the luggage with a baggage identification tag in the 2^nd defendant’s name and the 2^nd defendant to leave the airport.  Well the baggage was intercepted and the drugs were found inside the bag in a total of 20 transparent plastic bags.  This led to the arrest and caution of both defendants.

4.Now the 1^st defendant gave an explanation that a female called “Alice” had asked her to go to Thailand where a male would give her a suitcase there containing mushrooms and then she was to bring that suitcase back to Hong Kong and hand it over to Alice at a Japanese restaurant in Mong Kok and that explanation was supported to a certain extent by extracts from her mobile phone and WhatsApp communications with Alice over the period.

5.As far as the 2^nd defendant is concerned, she said that the 2^nd defendant helped her in the airport in Thailand to check-in the baggage.  She had come over and asked if she knew how to check-in.  She said she did not know and then the 2^nd defendant had helped her with the check-in and helped her put the baggage on the scale in the airport in Thailand.

6.The 1^st defendant’s role is clearly one of being the courier of the drugs which are inside the suitcase.  As far as the 2^nd defendant is concerned, his role was determined from checking his mobile phone and WhatsApp communications and the role of the 2^nd defendant would appear to be one of a watcher or an assistant of some respects to the courier, to assist her in checking-in to keep an eye on her at the airport.

7.There is a WhatsApp communication with another person that showed the 1^st defendant’s number, also details of 1^st defendant’s flight itinerary and the like and that the 2^nd defendant had been given details of the 1^st defendant and appeared to board with her and assist her in handling the luggage.

8.And the airline records reveal, although the flights of the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant were made under separate bookings, they took the same flight for the round trip between Hong Kong and Bangkok and were seated next to each another on the return flight from Bangkok to Hong Kong.

9.The facts themselves provide sufficient evidence to convict both defendants of the offence and also, in outline, to show their roles in respect of this offence. 

10.As far as their background is concerned, the 1^st defendant is now aged 64.  I am told she had limited formal education and was unemployed prior to her arrest.  I believe she is retired, and she is married and before her arrest she resided with her husband.  Her husband has certain illnesses and his mobility-impaired.  The defendant has three children.  They are all registered health workers and they are all here in court today to support her and they have written letters of mitigation to me.  Defendant had one minor previous conviction.  She has no previous drug convictions.

11.As far as her mitigation is concerned, she puts before the court the fact that prior to the commission of this offence, in September/October 2019 she was defrauded in Macau of some $360,000 and she has assisted the Macau authorities and the prosecution laid against the man she says is responsible for this offence and it is submitted that that provides some mitigation in that she has provided assistance to the Macau authorities and the court should give her some benefit for that.

12.Turning to the 2^nd defendant, he is, I think he must be 28 years of age now, 27 or 28 years of age, and he agrees the facts that have been put forward and concedes in his mitigation that his role is slightly more substantial than that of the 1^st defendant as a courier with the evidence suggesting that he had watched the acts of the 1^st defendant, helped her with checking the suitcases in but it is said and put forward in mitigation that his assistance falls short of been a direct trafficker, manager or organiser.  He is acting on the behest of another person and we can see that in the WhatsApp communications that take place.  The 2^nd defendant appeared to be taking orders from another unknown person to watch over the 1^st defendant, he was giving no orders himself to the 1^st defendant, and it would appear that the trip to Thailand was organised by someone else.  So it would put the 2^nd defendant’s role as one of being a mediating person within the offending.

13.As far as the defendant’s personal circumstances are concerned, he said he is single, has resided with his mother and elder brother prior to his arrest.  He joined the labour market after completing education.  He has taken up the role of a telemarketer and also sales person in a lighting store.  I am told he has been under financial pressure and as a result of that, was approached to take up the role of watching a drug mule.  He regrets having done that.  He has written a mitigation letter to the court showing his remorse, saying he has learnt a hard lesson and regretful for contravening the law.  I have read a mitigation letter from his mother who said the 2^nd defendant has been a diligent son.

14.Now turning to the approach to sentencing, the approach to sentencing in these cases could be seen generally for the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph which sets out a six-step approach to the calculation of sentence, the first relevant guideline band applicable to the drug and the quantity then assess the role of culpability of the defendants and where within the relevant band the defendants should come; assess any aggravating factors, any mitigating factors, then assign the totality of sentence, and also the case of Herry Jane Yusuph sets out that the court not here concerned in a mathematical exercise, a fair and just result should be achieved for each defendant.

15.The second case of relevance is of course that of HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi at [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329 where for an amount of herbal cannabis, which is what we are dealing with in this case of over 9,000 grammes, the sentence should range between 48 to 66 months.  Now the quantity here is 9,801 grammes and the value of those drugs is some $1,813,185, so we are dealing with a substantial quantity of this drug which on a mathematical calculation would put the starting point for sentence for the drugs alone in the region of 50 months’ imprisonment. 

16.I do note in this case in respect of both defendants there are what could be seen as aggravating factors.  Firstly, they are both involved in a joint enterprise.  Naturally bringing in drugs through the airport is likely to be a joint enterprise of some form.  Secondly, that the international dimension is also an aggravating factor in any case and as far as the 2^nd defendant is concerned, there is the aggravating factor of his enhanced role in the offending. 

17.Now I turn to how that should be approached in respect of each defendant.  As far as the quantity of drugs in concerned, the baseline starting point for over 9,000 grammes is 48 months’ imprisonment.  This amount for both defendants is over that but not substantially. I also bear in mind that each defendant has not been involved in drug cases before, this is their first case of trafficking in a dangerous drug.  So I consider that for them, the initial starting point for sentence for calculation before any aggravating mitigating factors are concerned should be one of 48 months’ imprisonment.

18.Now I turn to the individual defendants. The 1^st defendant also has the factors of this being a joint enterprise and a case with an international dimension in addition to this which do aggravate the sentence. However, I bear in mind she is also a person of clear record, she has support. She is involved in this at a substantial age as well which is unusual.  For the aggravating factors, I will add a further 6 months to the sentence to reflect those.  At this point, it leaves a sentence of 54 months’ imprisonment. 

19.I do take into account the mitigating factors of her age and also her assistance to authorities in Macau and I will reduce that starting point for sentence by some 3 months to a starting point of 51 months’ imprisonment.  She is entitled to a full one-third discount which leads to a sentence of 34 months’ imprisonment.

20.I now turn to the 2^nd defendant.  Of course he starts again from 48 months.  He has some aggravating factors.  I have already outlined the aggregating factors of international dimension, his role in the case and it is a joint enterprise. The offence was also committed while he was on bail for another matter which again is another aggravating factor.

21.As far as he is concerned, I will add a further 9 months to that calculation, leading to a starting point for sentence of 57 months’ imprisonment.  After deduction of the full one-third discount, that leads to a sentence of 38 months’ imprisonment for him.