HKSAR v. Barros Correia Daniel Carlos

CACC 271/2025, [2026] HKCA 1643

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 271 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 194 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Macrae VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.The appellant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to a single charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 910.40 grammes of a solid containing 768.50 grammes of cocaine, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  He was committed to the High Court for sentence and, on 23 December 2020, sentenced by Toh J (“the judge”) to 14 years’ imprisonment.  With an extension of time to appeal and leave to appeal granted by the Single Judge[1] on 10 February 2026, the appellant now appeals against his sentence.

Facts

2.On 27 October 2019, the appellant arrived at Hong Kong International Airport on a flight from São Paulo, Brazil, via Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.  When passing through the Green Channel at Customs Arrival Hall B, the appellant was intercepted for a Customs clearance check, whereupon three transparent plastic packets containing white granules were each found in his left and right socks, making a total of 6 packets.  A narcotic test on the granular objects in those transparent plastic packets proved positive for cocaine. 

3.The appellant was subsequently admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital where he discharged a total of 77 packets, which were also confirmed to contain cocaine.

4.In a cautioned record of interview, the appellant stated that he had been instructed by a person called “Leandro” to bring cocaine to Hong Kong and was promised a reward of 20,000 Brazilian Reals.  On the day before his flight to Hong Kong, he was given what he was told were 100 pellets of cocaine to swallow, which he did.  Whilst en route in Addis Ababa, however, he vomited 12 pellets of cocaine and discarded them.  Upon his arrival in Hong Kong, he vomited further pellets of cocaine, which he then kept in his socks.  The appellant said it was part of the plan that he should go to a hotel booked by Leandro and he would be given a contact for delivery.  He would receive his reward after meeting his contact.

5.At the time of the arrest, the appellant was in possession of a mobile telephone, US$1,000 and 82 Brazilian Reals.

6.The contents of the 83 packets were found to be 910.40 grammes of a solid containing 768.50 grammes of cocaine, with a retail value of HK$930,428.  The appellant admitted that he was trafficking in the dangerous drugs.

Sentencing

7.The appellant was 24 years of age and had a clear record in Hong Kong at the time of sentence. 

8.By reference to the guidelines prevailing at the time of sentence, as set out in HKSAR v Abdallah[2], the judge held that 768.50 grammes of cocaine fell within the band of 600 to 1,200 grammes with a sentencing range of 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment.  The judge adopted the lower starting point of 20 years’ imprisonment[3].

9.The judge then enhanced the starting point by 1 year for the international element of bringing the drugs across the border into Hong Kong, making the notional sentence after trial one of 21 years’ imprisonment.  She gave the appellant a one-third discount for his timely plea, thus reducing the sentence to 14 years’ imprisonment[4].

Ground of appeal

10.Mr Boyton, for the appellant, has advanced a sole ground of appeal that the appellant is entitled to benefit from the revised guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3)[5] and a consequent reduction in sentence.

The respondent’s submissions

11.Mr Lai, for the respondent, does not oppose the appeal.  He submits that, under the revised guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3), the arithmetic starting point for trafficking in 768.50 grammes of cocaine would be 17 years’ imprisonment.  He contends that an enhancement of 12 to 18 months would be appropriate for the international element, and that after allowing a one-third discount for his plea, the resultant sentence should be in the range of 12 years to 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

Decision

12.The appellant was sentenced after the cut-off date discussed in HKSAR v Lam Man Tak[6] and is still, therefore, within the appeal system, subject to an extension of time within which to appeal against his sentence, which has already been granted.  Given the quantity concerned, the method of concealment and the appellant’s role and culpability as an international trafficker across three continents, we consider in sentencing afresh that the appropriate notional sentence after trial under the revised guidelines should have been 18 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

13.Allowing a one-third discount for his early plea before a magistrate, the sentence thereby becomes 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

14.The appellant’s appeal against sentence is accordingly allowed and his sentence reduced from 14 years’ imprisonment to 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

Mr Lucas Lai SPP (Ag), of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Mr David Boyton and Ms Gretel Wong, instructed by Lee Law Firm, for the Appellant

[1]  Macrae VP.

[2]  HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437.

[3]  Appeal Bundle (“AB”), p 8L-M.

[4]  AB, p 8M-N.

[5]  HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

[6]  HKSAR v Lam Man Tak[2026] 2 HKLRD 199.