COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to a count of trafficking in a dangerous drug in the committal proceedings. She was charged on the 9th day of August 2024 at Customs Arrival Hall, Hong Kong International Airport, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 5.88 kilogrammes of a solid containing 4.65 kilogrammes of cocaine.
The facts which she admitted are as follows.
On 9 August 2024, defendant arrived in Hong Kong from Hanoi, Vietnam on flight CX740. While defendant was passing through the “there is nothing to declare” channel at Customs Arrival Hall A of Hong Kong International Airport in Chek Lap Kok, Lantau Island, Hong Kong, defendant was intercepted by Acting Senior Customs Officer 1569 for customs clearance.
Defendant was carrying a light blue large suitcase with a small light blue suitcase placed on top of the same, a black hand-carry bag and an orange shopping bag. Customs Officer 1569 led defendant to Customs Officer 18254 for baggage examination. X-ray screening was conducted on defendant’s luggage and X-ray screening revealed that there was a large quantity of suspicious pellets inside the large suitcase.
Defendant was led to Customs Examination Counter N6 for further baggage examination. Customs Officer 18254 asked defendant in English, “Are these four luggage belonged to you?” Defendant nodded her head. The officer opened the large suitcase and found two pieces of clothing and three plush toys inside. The officer picked up the toy and found them to be exceptionally heavy with hard objects concealed inside.
The officer cut open the green plush toy and found that there were pellets of suspicious dangerous drugs therein. The officer cut open the plastic wrapping of the pellets and found that the pellets contained white powder. Narcotic test conducted on the white powder yielded positive results to cocaine. Defendant was arrested.
Under caution, defendant gave no response to the questions posed by Acting Senior Customs Officer 1569. All the suspected dangerous drugs contained in the three plush toys were seized and sent to Government Laboratory for examination. Government chemist confirmed that there were a total of 285 packets containing a total of 5.88 kilogrammes of a solid containing 4.65 kilogrammes of cocaine.
One mobile phone, four boarding passes and one immigration departure card were also seized from defendant.
The estimated retail value of all the seized dangerous drugs was HK$4,204,200.
Defendant now admits and accepts that at all material times she was unlawfully trafficking all the dangerous drugs seized in the present case.
The defendant is a Polish female. She was born on 15 April 1956. She is now 70 years of age. She has a clear criminal record in Hong Kong and in fact I am told by Mr Laskey she had a clear record throughout the world and I accept that.
It is submitted on her behalf by Mr Laskey that she was ignorant of the workings of the drug trafficking business. Particularly it was conducted internationally. It was advanced on her behalf that she was unaware of the scale of the operation. She had no idea whatsoever of the quantity and the value. Her reward, Mr Laskey said, is only a return trip plus some spending money less than US$150.
It is also submitted on her behalf that because of the language difficulty, she only speaks Polish. It means that her imprisonment has been an isolated experience and likely to continue as such. I do accept as a foreigner serving sentence in Hong Kong adds hardship to her.
I have also before me a short note from Father John Wotherspoon attaching information that has been provided by the defendant to him. In particular a contact number of the person who is said to have recruited the defendant in this trafficking operation. That piece of information was shared with a person working at the US consulate and it is said that the phone numbers are useful for potential identification purposes.
And it is in that respect, Father said, her participation in the anti-drug campaign by way of sharing useful information, he asked for the court to give the defendant some reduction of sentence.
In sentencing you, I first have to refer to the recent Court of Appeal case in Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 which revised the guideline in particular for substantial quantity of cocaine.
The new guideline according to the authority is for quantities between 1.5 kilogrammes to 5 kilogrammes the sentencing ranges from 20 to 24 years. From pure mathematical calculation for 4.65 kilogrammes of cocaine, the term of imprisonment is 23 years and 7 months.
Next, I have to consider the role of the defendant. She bring in a substantial quantity of cocaine into Hong Kong and for this international element the Court of Appeal in Lee Ming Ho [2025](2024?) 1 HKLRD 1186, said at paragraph 70 of the judgment:
“Where an international element is involved are, in the ordinary course, now to be regarded as matters going to the role and culpability of the offender when identifying the starting point.”
At paragraph 74, the Court of Appeal said:
“We must reiterate that the international element should now generally be considered as a factor when assessing the role and culpability of the offender in order to identify the appropriate starting point for sentence. In exercising their discretion, courts will still bear in mind the quantity of narcotic being introduced into Hong Kong which not only increases the supply of the particular dangerous drug but causes greater harm to the community.”
Guided by what was said by the Court of Appeal in Lee Ming Ho, I enhance the starting point of 23 years and 7 months by 1 year and 2 months taking into consideration your role and culpability in taking drugs into Hong Kong. Therefore, the notional starting point after trial will be one of 24 years and 9 months.
You had plead guilty at the earliest available opportunity, I will give you a full one-third discount from the notional starting point. Other than your plea of guilty, I do not find that there are any other mitigating circumstances. The fact that you are a foreigner and speak only Polish in my view will not earn you any discount.
The Court of Appeal in the case of Coz Tucto Delia [2021] 1 HKLRD 182, the Court of Appeal in dealing with an appeal against sentence commented that the trial judge or the judge at First Instance when sentencing the defendant did not accept the difficulty she was facing as a foreigner in a local prison was a mitigating factor nor would her family circumstances or financial hardship play any part in offences as serious as international drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal did not criticise that approach by the judge. In particular in paragraph 17 of the judgment:
“As has been stated by this court on numerous occasions, an offender’s personal circumstances seldom provide meaningful mitigation in relation to offences of international drug trafficking which are crimes of the utmost gravity.”
As to the assistance which the defendant had given to Father Wotherspoon as outlined in Father Wotherspoon’s note, this is not a case which the defendant had provided her story to Father for publication in his campaign to fight people trafficking in dangerous drugs in particular bringing drugs into Hong Kong.
The assistance as I have said earlier is limited to the fact that she had provided information concerning a contact with the person whom she alleged had recruited her. Those contact information was shared by Father with someone working in the US consulate and they had rated the numbers are useful for potential identification purposes.
In the case of Cherop Caroline [2021] 3 HKLRD 904, the Court of Appeal had this to say:
“Whilst a token discount may still be given for assistance to the campaign, judges should not rely on hearsay, anecdote and mere assertions of usefulness but must look at the letter(s) that have been written by a defendant or applicant and consider the substance, as well as when and how they have been written, if they were popular to act on them in their exercise of their discretion. A discount of up to 3 months was neither automatic, nor an entitlement but represented the limit for taking part in the campaign and was exceptional. Judges were perfectly entitled in the exercise of their discretion to give no discount for this factor at all.”
The Court of Appeal in that case commented on the material put before them:
“Nowhere in the letter was there any reference to or copy of any letter(s) defendant had supposedly written for publication on the website concerned, which the court has always understood was the original purpose of his campaign.”
Similarly in this case now before me, there is no story written by the defendant for the purpose of publication on the website of Father John Wotherspoon. As said by the Court of Appeal this is always understood by the court the original purpose of this campaign. What is now before me is simply some contact information of a person whom the defendant alleged had recruited her.
I do not think these information are those assistance in the mind of the Court of Appeal in cases when they decided to exercise the discretion to allow a small discount of 3 months or less. In the circumstances, I will not give any discount for the assistance that she had given to Father John Wotherspoon.
At the end of the day I will only give you one-third discount from the notional starting point. I sentence you to term of imprisonment for 16 years and 6 months.
