COURT: Each of the two defendants pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug before a magistrate on 26 March this year.
(Discussion re interpretation)
COURT: In respect of the 1st defendant, it is alleged that on the 19th day of July 2024, he unlawfully trafficked in 539 grammes of cocaine narcotic at the Hong Kong International Airport. In respect of the 2nd defendant, it is alleged that on the same day, at the same location, he unlawfully trafficked in 524 grammes of cocaine narcotic.
In respect of the facts of this case, it is very simple. On 19 July 2024 the two defendants, both of them are national of Zambia, flew from Guinea to arrive at Hong Kong International Airport via Dubai with some foreign objects, which turned out to be dangerous drug, concealed inside their bodies. The 2nd defendant was pregnant at that time.
Subsequent examination of the defendants in the hospital were required by the Customs and Excise officers who suspected they might have foreign objects concealed inside their bodies.
Whilst the 1st defendant was staying in the hospitals between 20 and 21 July 2024, he had excreted a total of 68 packets containing a total of 738 grammes of a solid containing 539 grammes of cocaine, each of those packets consisting of plastic wrappings.
The estimated street value of those cocaine was about HK$554,238.
In respect of the 2nd defendant, whilst she was staying in the hospitals between 20 and 22 July, she had excreted a total of 100 packets of cocaine, each consisting of plastic wrappings. The total quantity was 787 grammes of a solid containing 524 grammes of cocaine narcotic.
The estimated street value of those cocaine was about HK$591,037.
When it was found out by X-ray examination that the 1st defendant had some foreign objects concealed inside his body, the Customs officer arrested and cautioned him in English. At that time, he said under caution that the foreign objects detected inside his body were prohibited medicine as somebody told him. He swallowed them in a hotel in Guinea. He did not know how to handle them. Someone would find him after he arrived in Hong Kong. He said he would receive US$4,000 as a reward, and that the 2nd defendant was his girlfriend. She had swallowed foreign objects too at the same hotel but in a different room.
Later, after he had discharged 17 packets of cocaine, the Customs officer cautioned him again. He replied that he did not know what were those 17 packets, and he had swallowed at least 50 packets.
In respect of the 2nd defendant, after she had excreted 6 packets of cocaine, the Customs officer arrested and cautioned her. She stated under caution that those six packets she had just excreted were drugs. She did not know what type of drugs they were. She swallowed them in Guinea, and somebody she did not know would contact her to handle the drug. She would receive US$3,000 as a reward to bring the drugs to Hong Kong. The 1st defendant was her friend, a friend that she met at the restaurant she worked.
Both defendants now accept and admit that they were knowingly in possession of all the cocaine concealed inside their respective bodies for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
During the mitigation of the 1st defendant, I was informed by Ms Mohamed that the 1st defendant is now 50 years of age. He is married with three sons, now aged 19, 16 and 13 respectively. The 1st defendant was educated up to secondary level. Previously he had done manual labour and some farm work, but he could not save much money because he spent whatever he earned on his family. At the time of his arrest he was sourcing precious stones and gold, and he had been engaged in that kind of work for three years. He committed the present offence because of his financial difficulty and financial situation.
Counsel submitted that he worked in a business in Zambia. He was engaged in the buying and selling of precious stones and gold, his role was to source the gold. When he was in Guinea, a gold seller proposed for him to travel to Hong Kong to deliver something, and he had never received the reward as promised before his arrest. Counsel admitted that the 1st defendant was aware that he was carrying drugs to Hong Kong.
Counsel also informed me that whilst he was remanded in custody in Hong Kong he enrolled for a number of courses, trying to improve himself while in prison. Counsel admitted that the strongest mitigating factor was the early plea of guilty by the 1st defendant, and she rightly acknowledged that case was aggravated by the fact that an international element is involved.
In addition to counsel’s mitigation, the 1st defendant also wrote a letter to this court to plead for leniency, saying that he was profoundly sorry and asked to be given a second chance. He said that he was a first offender and he asked this court to impose a lenient sentence. The same request was made by his son who had written a second letter to this court.
In respect of the 2nd defendant, she is also of clear record. According to the antecedent statement, at the time of her arrest she worked as a ‘zuli’, earning around US$1,000 per month. In mitigation, counsel Mr Bullett informed me that she is now 27 years old. She came from Zambia, and she is married with three daughters aged 9, 6 and 1 respectively. The youngest daughter was born in Hong Kong after her arrest. At the time when she was arrested she was unaware that she was pregnant. Counsel informed me she is now divorced from her husband.
The 2nd defendant left university in her second year. She worked as a trainee laboratory assistant, and then as a waitress in Zambia. She did not know the 1st defendant before this trip. She deeply regreted having undertaken the trip which she agreed due to her poor financial situation. Counsel submitted that she had provided the name of the organiser of her trip to the police in Zambia through her family. This matter was apparently not known to the prosecution before this day. And she had also provided assistance to Father Wotherspoon’s anti-trafficking campaign.
Counsel informed me that she had enrolled in some courses and submitted a certificate of completion in respect of a self-learning work psychology course, and also a distant learning certificate in corporate human resource management. Counsel also submitted photographs of her family members to show me that she had a big family.
In respect of the letter from Father Wotherspoon, it was a letter dated 29 August 2026. In this letter, Father Wotherspoon informed the court that the 2nd defendant helped his campaign by allowing him to share her information with the media and authorities in Ethiopia, and he also shared the information with the authorities in Addis Ababa.
According to an e-mail that was attached to the letter from Father Wotherspoon, apparently some names were provided by the 2nd defendant. Many of them appeared to be incomplete, either the first name or the second name was not there. Other than that I was unable to see anything of value or useful. That information was provided to the manager of the relevant hotel in Addis Ababa around half a year after the arrest of the 2nd defendant.
According to the revised guideline in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the starting point for trafficking in between 500 and 1,500 grammes of cocaine narcotic is 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment after trial. The quantity being trafficked by the 1st defendant was 539 grammes of cocaine narcotic, and the quantity involved in respect of the 2nd defendant was 524 grammes of cocaine narcotic. So the mathematical starting point for trafficking in those amounts of cocaine narcotic would be about 16 years and 1 month’s imprisonment for both defendants.
The mathematical starting point is appropriate for persons at the lower bottom of the trafficking hierarchy such as storekeepers and couriers. In arriving at the appropriate starting point for each of these two defendants, I have to take into account their respective roles and culpability in this case.
In respect of both defendants, they were at the material time acting as drug mules being used in the international importation of the drug into Hong Kong. They assisted in fuelling the supply of cocaine in Hong Kong to cause harm to individuals and the society here. Regardless of the circumstances of their own personal background and involvement, the court should take this into account as an aggravating feature.
Bearing in mind the overall role and culpability especially the international element, I consider that it would be appropriate to enhance the mathematical starting point by 1 year for each of the two defendants. So the notional starting point after trial for each of the two defendants would be 17 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.
In respect of the 1st defendant, there was no effective mitigating factor other than his early plea of guilty which would entitle him to a full one-third discount. As many authorities have pointed out, personal circumstances do not really amount to effective mitigation for offences as serious as trafficking in a dangerous drug. As such, I would sentence the 1st defendant to 11 years and 4 months’ imprisonment after giving him the full one-third discount for his early plea of guilty.
In respect of the 2nd defendant, counsel relied upon her participation in Father Wotherspoon’s anti-narcotics campaign and asked this court to exercise its discretion to give her a small additional discount.
I do bear in mind the principles stated in the case of HKSAR v Kilima [2018] 5 HKLRD 88 and HKSAR v Cherop Caroline [2021] 3 HKLRD 904. In those cases, the Court of Appeal pointed out that it lay within the sentencing judge’s discretion to allow a token discount of up to 3 months which is the limit, but this discount must be exceptional in nature. Judges are perfectly entitled in the exercise of their discretion to give no discount for this factor at all.
I have studied the information contained in the e-mail sent by Father Wotherspoon to the hotel manager. In fact I find the information very vague and general, and only some partial names were given. The information did not appear to me to be of great value to whoever might receive the information. It did not contain any meaningful value or useful information that might result in any fruitful investigation at all. I also understand that no arrest or seizure had been resulted because of the information provided by the 2nd defendant.
I take the view that her contribution to Father Wotherspoon does not entitle her to receive any further discount for this matter. Of course, if she continues to participate in the programme and her assistance would be of value in the future, it may be a matter that the executive may find it appropriate to give her some discount after assessing the degree and effectiveness of her contribution in the programme. But that is a matter for her to take up in the future, in case the information proved to be of some value.
In the circumstances, I would not give her any additional discount for her participation in Father Wotherspoon’s programme. So in respect of the 2nd defendant, again the only useful mitigating factor was her early plea of guilty which would entitle her to a full one-third discount. Like the 1st defendant, after the full one-third discount she is sentenced to a total of 11 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. So that is the sentence I would impose on each of the two defendants.
