COURT: The two defendants, Sanchez Sitjar Isidro, D1, and Alfonso Herrera Maria Jesus, D2, were jointly charged with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. They both pleaded guilty before a magistrate and were committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.
Now the Summary of Facts admitted by both defendants. The facts are relatively straightforward. On the 27 October 2024, both defendants were intercepted at the Green Channel, Customs Arrival B, Hong Kong International Airport. Examination of D1’s suitcase revealed the presence and what was later confirmed to be a total of 3.99 kilogrammes of a solid containing 3.18 kilogrammes of cocaine inside four packets concealed inside both covers of the suitcase.
Examination of D2’s suitcase also found what was later confirmed to be a total of 3.98 kilogrammes of a solid containing 3.16 kilogrammes of cocaine. They were also contained in four packets concealed inside both covers of the suitcase. So, a total of 7.97 kilogrammes of a solid containing 6.34 kilogrammes of cocaine were found inside the suitcases of both 1st and 2nd defendants.
At the time of the arrest, D1 and D2 had with them, among other things, the following: D1 had Euro 598.6, two mobile phones. D2 had Euro 141 and one mobile phone.
D1, in a subsequent video-recorded interview, basically denied knowledge of the drugs, saying that he had paid for all the travelling expenses for himself and for D2, who was his girlfriend, but that D2 would share the expenses with him. He said he bought both suitcases in Paris and found both heavier than usual, but did not pay attention.
However, examination of WhatsApp conversation between D1 and D2 and between D1 and two other persons named Paco and Fredi, respectively. The gist of these conversations was that Fredi would pay for the flight to Hong Kong. D1 and D2 provided their travel documents to Fredi to arrange for the travel. D1 and D2 had to, “look smart”, “look good”, “look elegant”, and to stay calm whatever happened. D1 would have to delete all messages after he arrived at the hotel in Hong Kong.
The estimated prevailing street value for the dangerous drug seized from both the defendants was HK$6,814,350.
Both defendants admitted they trafficked in a dangerous drug, that is, the drugs found in the two suitcases, 7.97 kilogrammes of a solid containing 6.34 kilogrammes of cocaine, by knowingly imported the dangerous drug into Hong Kong.
Now the background and mitigation. D1 first. D1 is a Spanish male, born in June 1960 in Venezuela. He is now 66 years of age. D1’s counsel, Ms Nisha Mohamed, informed the court that D1 was admitted into a psychiatric hospital and asked for an adjournment to obtain a medical report. As there is no suggestion or indication that D1 committed the present offence due to any mental illness, if any, there is no reason to adjourn the case for a medical report.
This court will consider the appropriate sentence with reference to the circumstances of the offence. It is for the director of the correctional services to decide what facility D1 should be housed, and what treatment, if any, to be given to him.
Ms Mohamed provided details of the background of D1. D1 was never married, but he had a long-term partner. His mother died from an agonising death when he was 8 years old as a result of a car accident in which she was burned by boiling water from the engine. His father then brought them, that is he and his siblings, to live in Spain and his siblings are still there.
After finishing primary education, D1 helped his father to establish a business, so he did not attend any secondary schooling. He learned how to make furniture after enrolling in a vocational training course. D1 worked in the construction field between the age of 21 to 40. And after the construction industry collapsed, he worked in a restaurant where he met his then partner.
He and his partner opened a restaurant after pulling all the savings into it. Then COVID struck in 2021 and the restaurant had to shut down. D1 and his partner were in debt. His partner died as a result of COVID. D1 had no income, no home, and was living rough on the street.
He then met a person called Paco in 2024 who was kind to him. And after D1 told Paco his hardship, Paco offered D1 a job to deliver suitcases to countries in Europe. He was promised Euro 10,000 with all expenses paid if the delivery was successful. The 1st defendant was caught so he never received the reward promised. And D1 found it hard to face his future in jail and refused to eat, resulting in him being sent to Siu Lam for 21 days.
With reference to the six-step approach in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph, [2021] HKLRD 290. Defence counsel submitted that the role of D1 was that of a courier. There were no aggravating factors save for the international element. D1 had pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity.
This court received a letter written by a Father Fernando, a Dominican priest who is chaplain to several prisons in Hong Kong, seeking leniency on behalf of D1. Father Fernando submitted that D1 had been in a very poor state of mind over the last two years and had contemplated taking his own life. Father Fernando asked this court to temper justice with mercy.
Now D2. D2 is a Spanish female born in November 1964. She is now 61 years old. Mr Polson, counsel for D2 submitted D2 was a courier with the international element as aggravating factor. D2 pleaded guilty at the committal stage. D2 found it hard to be in jail here as she had no relatives or friends who could visit her. Her mother is ill and might die soon. D2 had written to this court, expressing her remorse for having committed the offence. She claimed she was suffering from depression and ill health. She asked to be sentenced as soon as possible so that she can start the process of applying to serve her sentence back home where her mother who was too old to travel, could visit her.
I was provided also with a copy certificate showing that D2 had completed a 50-hour course in self-directed learning series for effective presentation and meeting for executives and passed the required examination. The course was run by the School of Continuing and Professional Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Now my consideration for the sentence. Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence. A person convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug on indictment is liable to a fine of $5 million and to imprisonment for life. I will adopt the six-step approach in Herry Jane Yusuph.
Step One
The dangerous drug involved for both defendants was 6.34 kilogrammes of cocaine, which falls into the band of between 5,000 and 15,000 grammes, with a starting point of 24 to 27 years, according to the revised guidelines in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] HKLRD 138. So that’s the first step.
Step Two
On the evidence before me, both defendants acted together as couriers, who had brought a fairly substantial amount of cocaine into Hong Kong. Importing dangerous drugs into Hong Kong fuels the local market and has serious and deleterious consequences to the people and the community of Hong Kong, see the case HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186, and the case of HKSAR v Fong Yau Heung [2022] 2 HKLRD 99.
Step Three
So within the relevant band, the proper starting point for both defendants is one of 26 years.
Step Four
There are no other aggravating factors outside of the circumstances of the commission of the present offence by both defendants. Any international element had already been taken into consideration under step two.
Step Five
Both defendants pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity and are entitled to a full one-third discount.
With a one-third discount, the sentence would be 17 years and 4 months, which is equivalent to 208 months. There are no other mitigating factors to reduce the sentence. D1’s mental condition and D2’s ill health do not amount to humanitarian grounds to further reduce the sentence. Whilst I appreciate the hardship suffered by both defendants for being foreigners here while in custody, that is the result they have to face by bringing dangerous drug into Hong Kong.
Step Six
So the last step, step six. I am of the view that the sentence is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the two defendants.
Actual Sentence
For the actual sentence for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the 1st defendant is sentenced to 17 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. The 2nd defendant is also sentenced to 17 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
