HKSAR v. Chamjuree Sittichai

DCCC 1648/2025

[2026] HKDC 1865

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1648 OF 2025

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

--------------------------------------------------

1.The defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.The particulars of the offence were that D, on 28 May 2025, at Customs Arrival Hall B, Passenger Terminal 1, Hong Kong International Airport, No. 1 Cheong tat Road, Chek Lap Kok, New Territories, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 12,001 grammes of cannabis in herbal form.

Facts

3.On 28 May 2025 in the morning, D arrived in Hong Kong from Bangkok pursuant to flight HX 760 (Hong Kong Airline Limited).  D travelled alone on a local tour which lasted for 3 days.  D was scheduled to return to Bangkok on 30 May 2025.

4.At around 6:39 am, D was intercepted in Hall B by SCO 12228 whilst carrying a white check-in suitcase and a black carry-on cross body bag.  Under SCO 12228’s supervision, CO 19156 conducted an X-ray scan.  As D appeared not to be familiar with English, CO 19156 used the translation software to communicate with D in Thai asking whether both the suitcase and bag belonged to him, to which D answered “Yes” in English.

5.CO 19156 also checked the suitcase which matched D’s name (as well as Hong Kong Airline Limited’s baggage record on D).  The suitcase was not locked, and D opened it himself for inspection.  Upon inspection, 17 vacuum-sealed plastic bags containing a total of 12,001 grammes of cannabis in herbal form were found covered by some clothes inside the suitcase.  Sample testing at the scene yielded a positive result for cannabis.

6.At around 6:47 am, CO 19156 arrested D.  Under caution, D remained silent.  At the time of arrest, D was in possession of inter alia 2 mobile phones, cash of HK$150 and Thai Bhat 3,000.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview conducted with D on the same day in the presence of a Thai interpreter, D also remained silent.

7.Government Chemist’s Certificate dated 19 August 2025 confirmed the narcotic content of the cannabis.  In May 2025, the estimated street value of 12,001 grammes of cannabis in herbal form was about HK$1,908,159.

Mitigation

8.D is now aged 22 and he had no criminal record.

9.The Court of Appeal in Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 laid down the six-step approach for sentencing.  Mr Grounds has gone through these six steps step by step.  For steps 2, 3 and 6, D, aged 22, at the time of his arrest he was only 20 years old.  Educated up to Form 3, he then worked as a construction worker at a daily rate converted to Hong Kong Dollars about 100 per day. 

10.D’s father was recently, in August 2026, been killed in a road accident.  His family had a younger sister aged about 10 years old.  The girl’s parents gave her to the care of D’s parents when she was only aged 1, because at that time her parents were both imprisoned and D’s parents took her and made her as a family member.  Mr Grounds submitted the kind hearted nature of the family, especially showed by D’s parents, also seen by looking after his mother’s disabled brother who is now in early 50s. 

11.D committed the present offence because his girlfriend lost her job. Family expenses remained the same.  Home financing in Thailand had been worsened as a result also of the father’s untimely death. 

12.Now, concerning steps 5 and 6, D stated that he is extremely sorry to have committed the present offence.  While remanded in Stanley Prison, D has enrolled in learning English and intends to continue to do so and to benefit from it.  D is still very young.  He intends to lead a good life upon release and is already some way down the road of rehabilitation. 

13.Taking all these matters, Mr Grounds submitted to this court that maybe a more lenient approach can be made to sentence D as lenient as possible. 

14.Concerning steps 1 and 3 about the guidelines, the guidelines for sentencing in herbal cannabis and cannabis resin have been laid down in HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329.  The relevant band is 9,000 to 15,000 grammes where the sentencing range is 48 to 66 months.  So on a rather rigid mathematical basis, for the present offence involving 12,000 grammes of herbal cannabis, the starting point would be 57 months’ imprisonment. 

15.And concerning D’s role, he was clearly only a courier, the lowest level of trafficking.  Despite there have been international element involved, the court is free to adopt a lower starting point.

16.For the international element, that would concern steps 2 to 4.  Under the present approach, international element can simply be factored in as part of the starting point rather than as an additional aggravating factor.  The court will note that D when he pleaded was only 20 years old and trafficking in cannabis but not more addictive elements such as ‘ice’ or heroin or cocaine. 

17.Adopting the new approach, the court can simply take into this account the international element as part of the role and culpability of the offender. Whereas in the old approach, an enhancement of maybe 1 month or more could be imposed on top of the starting point. 

18.So all along, D is only aged 22, relatively low level of culpability that he is only a courier, the drug was only cannabis rather than any other kinds of highly addictive drugs.  And the kind hearted action of D’s family could be taken into account, and also his father’s recent untimely passing away.  So at most, taking into account the international element, the starting point could be just 57 months’ imprisonment.  And upon his guilty plea, a one-third reduction should be adopted. 

19.Lastly, on the estimated retail value of cannabis.  Mr Grounds submitted that of course it was only an estimate.  Because the expert figures were only based upon seizures of below 5 grammes of cannabis and that was definitely dealing with the retail sales only at street level, it would not be unreasonable to think that for tiny quantities, the price is higher.  So the estimate of HK$1.9 million could be very wrong.  But in any event, the court will take into account the weight of the narcotic content for the purpose of sentencing. 

Consideration

20.Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very serious offence.  The Court of Appeal in Herry Jane Yusuph laid down the six-step approach for sentencing. 

21.First, as to the quantity in the guidelines for the drugs involved, in Nguyen Thang Loi as stated above, stating that trafficking in herbal cannabis over 9 kilogrammes, 48 to 66 months should be adopted, and over 15 kilogrammes, 66 to 96 months.  For the present case involving about 12 kilogrammes, upon a pure mathematical calculation, the starting point shall be 57 months’ imprisonment.

22.The second step would be D’s role.  Clearly, he had taken up the role of a courier. 

23.In the third step, to consider whether it is necessary to go outside the relevant band for the sentencing, but considering his role it is clearly not necessary. 

24.On the fourth ground, on the aggravating factors, D imported the drugs from Thailand to Hong Kong.  Clearly, it would be an aggravating feature.  But considering D’s guilty plea, his young age, his role, I do not intend to make an enhancement in this regard. 

25.And then on the fifth and the sixth grounds, considering the overall circumstances of the case, all the mitigation and aggravating factors, I would adopt the starting point as shown in the guidelines for 57 months’ imprisonment as the starting point. 

26.Upon D’s guilty plea, that will be reduced to 38 months’ imprisonment. So for this charge, D is sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment.