HKSAR v. Jessenia Correa Navarro

CACC 220/2025 [2026] HKCA 1960

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 3859

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 220 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 277 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1.The applicant (D2 at trial) was one of four defendants, including Sandra Julieth Mejia Ramirez (D1 at trial), Rojas Montoya Juan Pablo (D3 at trial), and Grisales Pelaez Arony Olinder (D4 at trial), facing seven drug-related charges.  The applicant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to three charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug, which were committed on 2 March 2018, namely:

Count 1: jointly with D1[1], at an industrial unit in Chai Wan, they unlawfully trafficked in 26,360 grammes of a solid containing 14,300 grammes of cocaine;

Count 3: jointly with D1, at the same industrial unit in Chai Wan, they unlawfully trafficked in 343.18 grammes of a solid containing 223.67 grammes of cocaine; and

Count 4: at a house in Sai Kung, she unlawfully trafficked in 888 grammes of a solid containing 748 grammes of cocaine and 59.16 grammes of cannabis in herbal form.

2.On 24 November 2022, the applicant was sentenced by Alex Lee J (the judge) to 20 years and 5 months’ imprisonment on Count 1, 7 years and 10 months’ imprisonment on Count 3, and 13 years and 2 months’ imprisonment on Count 4.  He ordered the sentences to run concurrently, resulting in a total term of 20 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

3.On 2 July 2025, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against sentence out of time by about two years and six months.  She seeks a reduction in sentence, relying on the revised guidelines laid down in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3)[2].  

4.At the leave hearing, the applicant appears in person, having had her application for legal aid refused on 6 August 2025.

The agreed facts[3]

5.Between 25 and 28 February 2018, Customs officers intercepted four parcels sent from Beijing through a logistics company by a person called “Hung Mong-mong”, each of which was found to have concealed inside metal cylinders and shells various quantities of cocaine.  Parcels 1 and 2 contained 17,820 grammes of cocaine, which were not the subject matter of any charge.[4] Parcel 3 contained 14,300 grammes of cocaine, as particularised in Count 1.  Parcel 4 contained 6,284 grammes of cocaine, as particularized in Count 7 against D4.  Parcels 1 to 3 were consigned to “Wong Chi-wai”, and Parcel 4 to “Andrew Wang”.

6.On 1 March 2018, the applicant sent a photograph of the waybills for Parcels 2 and 4 to a delivery driver (PW1) via WhatsApp and instructed him to collect them from the logistics company.  As Parcel 2 had not arrived, PW1 collected Parcels 3 and 4 instead.  On the applicant’s instructions, PW1 delivered Parcel 3 to a flat in Kailey Industrial Centre in Chai Wan (the flat), where D1 collected it and paid PW1, and Parcel 4 to the Royal View Hotel in Tsuen Wan, where an unknown man collected it[5].

7.On the afternoon of 2 March 2018, the applicant and D1 were intercepted as they were walking out of the flat while the applicant was locking it.  A search of the flat uncovered Parcel 3 (Count 1) and a metal box secured by a padlock, which could be opened with keys seized from each of them.  Inside the metal box were three plastic bags and a metal cylindrical device containing cocaine (Count 3), an electronic scale, a roll of aluminium foil, two bundles of ziplock bags, and two plastic bags.  Upon arrest, the applicant was found to be in possession of fifteen keys, three mobile telephones, and HK$22 in cash.  

8.The applicant admitted under caution that the cocaine in Count 3 belonged to her “for take drug”.  D1 stated in a cautioned interview that she went to the flat with the applicant for a party.

9.Later that evening, the applicant was escorted to a house on Clear Water Bay Road in Sai Kung (the house) for a search, where the officers used a key in her possession to gain entry.  She had rented the house since 1 September 2017 and paid a monthly rental of HK$55,000 to the landlord in cash.  On the first floor, they found a ziplock bag containing cocaine and two glass containers containing herbal cannabis, together with an inhalation device and a grinder; and in a cloakroom on the second floor, which was unlocked with another key in her possession, they found a suitcase containing two plastic bags containing further quantities of cocaine and herbal cannabis (Count 4).  Inside the cloakroom, they also found a safe containing HK$1,466,800, US$99,366 and Japanese yen 140,000 in cash (equivalent to around HK$2.24 million in total) and a cash-counting machine.  In the basement, there were broken metal cylinders and shells, a cutting machine, a hammer, used wrappings, an electronic scale and a bundle of ziplock bags. 

10.The applicant admitted under caution that she owned the herbal cannabis for smoking and the cocaine found on the first floor of the house, and that the safe could be unlocked using her fingerprint.  She claimed that the cocaine found on the second floor, the safe, the cash and the cutting machine belonged to her boyfriend.

11.When the applicant pleaded guilty, she admitted possessing the dangerous drugs in Counts 1, 3 and 4 for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and that the cash seized from the house represented proceeds received or possessed by her.  It was noted that she tested positive for cannabis in a urine test.  

12.At the material time, the average retail price of cocaine per gramme in Hong Kong was HK$1,009, and hence the value of the cocaine in Count 1 was approximately HK$26.6 million, in Count 3 was approximately HK$346,000, and in Count 4 was approximately HK$896,000.

The sentence

13.The applicant is a Colombian national, 34 years old at the time of sentence, with two children.  She came to Hong Kong on 7 June 2015 and was permitted to remain until 5 September 2015.  She had two previous convictions in Hong Kong for breach of condition of stay in 2013 and 2018, and was sentenced to 3 weeks’ imprisonment on 7 November 2018.[6]  In mitigation, defence counsel submitted that she had given non-prejudicial statements to the authorities and sought a reduction for her assistance, while accepting that the information provided was of limited utility and would justify a sentencing discount of no more than 40%.

14.In sentencing the applicant, the judge referred to the previous guidelines[7] and identified arithmetical starting points of 29 years and 9 months’ imprisonment for Count 1, 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment for Count 3, and 20 years and 9 months’ imprisonment for Count 4, excluding the herbal cannabis for sentencing purposes given its negligible quantity.  He bore in mind that the total quantity of cocaine was 15,271.67 grammes, warranting a notional sentence after trial of 30 years’ imprisonment.  As to the applicant’s role and culpability, he found that she was a trusted and senior member of the syndicate with deep involvement in the offending, that she was entrusted with a substantial quantity of cocaine and drug proceeds of about HK$2.2 million in cash, and that she had rented the premises.  He considered her role to be important and much higher in the hierarchy than that of a courier or storekeeper. 

15.For Count 1, the judge noted that there was an international element in that she played a significant role in facilitating the importation of the drugs into Hong Kong.  To reflect her role and culpability and the international element, he increased the starting point by 2 years and 6 months to 32 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.  Having regard to the assistance she provided to the authorities, which was of limited practical use and did not result in any prosecution, he applied a 36.5% discount for her guilty plea and assistance, and reduced the sentence to 20 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. 

16.As for Counts 3 and 4, the judge adopted starting points of 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment and 20 years and 9 months’ imprisonment respectively.  After applying a 36.5% discount for her pleas and assistance, he sentenced her to 7 years and 10 months’ imprisonment on Count 3 and 13 years and 2 months’ imprisonment on Count 4. 

17.After consideration of the totality principle, the judge ordered that all sentences be served concurrently with each other, resulting in a total term of 20 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

The respondent’s submissions

18.Mr Raymond HM Chan, for the respondent, opposes the application.  He argues that, even if the applicant were to be sentenced afresh under the revised guidelines and applicable principles, a difference in the sentence would not render the original sentence of 20 years and 5 months’ imprisonment manifestly excessive. 

19.Relying on HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[8] and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[9], Mr Chan submits that the applicant should be regarded as at least an organiser or manager of the trafficking operation, leaning towards the role of a financial controller.  In this context, he argues that her sentence should be substantially greater than the arithmetical starting points for her role and culpability and the international element.  He notes that she directed the collection and delivery of two parcels containing substantial quantities of cocaine from mainland China to different locations for storage, and that she engaged D1, another Colombian overstayer, to collect and distribute the parcel, as evidenced by D1’s joint control over the metal box containing the drugs and paraphernalia.  He submits that it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances that the applicant was also responsible for extracting the drugs and accounting for a significant amount of drug proceeds, from which she derived substantial financial gains.  

20.Mr Chan also points out that the herbal cannabis in Count 4, albeit in a small quantity, demonstrates that more than one type of dangerous drug was involved and is therefore an aggravating factor justifying an enhancement of the sentence.  Furthermore, he argues that Counts 3 and 4 were not closely connected with Count 1, as they involved different modes of offending and added to the applicant’s overall culpability, thereby warranting partly consecutive sentences. 

Discussion

21.The applicant was sentenced on 24 November 2022, and therefore satisfied the requirement of having been sentenced after 18 September 2018 for the revised guidelines to apply, as stated in HKSAR v Lam Man Tak[10], subject to the fact that her application for leave to appeal against sentence was made out of time.  If the Court were to allow her appeal and sentence her afresh under the revised guidelines and the applicable sentencing principles, it would consider whether and how those principles should be applied in her case. 

22.Under the revised guidelines, the arithmetical starting points[11], on the assumption that the applicant’s role was that of a courier or storekeeper, would be 26 years and 9 months’ imprisonment on Count 1, 12 years and 3 months’ imprisonment on Count 3, and 16 years and 11 months’ imprisonment on Count 4, without taking into account the herbal cannabis[12].  The arithmetical starting point for the total quantity of cocaine, namely 15,271.67 grammes, would be 27 years’ imprisonment. 

23.A critical consideration in reappraising the applicant’s sentence under the revised guidelines is her role and culpability. She played a predominant role in arranging the importation, collection, extraction and storage of the cocaine that was hidden in the imported articles.  It was clear that she was the principal organiser of a drug syndicate importing and distributing the drugs in Hong Kong.  As described by the judge, the applicant was “deeply involved” and “played an important role in the drug trade and was much higher in the hierarchy”.[13]  The judge noted that she was a trusted and senior member of the syndicate who was entrusted to deal with over 15 kilogrammes of cocaine.  She also rented the premises where the drugs were stored and was in possession of several million dollars in cash, representing the proceeds of the sale of the drugs.

24.The purpose of the revised guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3) is to establish a proportional progression of terms of imprisonment that provides sentencing courts with room for judicial discretion and proportional scaling when handling exceptionally large amounts of hard drugs.  They also provide sentencing courts with a degree of “room to manoeuvre” to appropriately reflect the offender’s actual conduct, role and culpability.[14]

25.It is hard to separate the applicant’s offending in the three counts, as they are all part and parcel of the principal role she played in the operations of this major drug syndicate.  The quantity of cocaine was substantial and the applicant’s involvement in the syndicate’s operations was both extensive and essential.  If the sentence were determined based merely on the total quantity of cocaine, a figure greater than the arithmetic starting point of 27 years would clearly be warranted.  For her role and culpability and the international element, a starting point of 30 years’ imprisonment, or more, would be justifiable.  There is also the aggravating factor that the applicant’s criminality involved multiple offences, which would warrant an enhancement of one year.  I note that she was in possession of another drug, namely herbal cannabis, but this was not taken into account when she was sentenced.  She also committed these offences while an overstayer in Hong Kong, and whether this was an aggravating factor was not addressed before the court and no allowance was made for it. 

26.While the applicant pleaded guilty to the three counts, she did at one stage request to make an application to reverse her pleas, and a hearing was fixed for that purpose but she later withdrew this application.[15] She also provided information to the authorities, which was described as having “limited practical use” but the judge, in his assessment, considered that she should receive a discount of 36.5% to her sentence for her timely pleas and limited assistance, which he stated was “a little bit generous”.[16]  After applying a discount of 36.5% to a notional starting point of 31 years’ imprisonment, the resultant sentence would be 19 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  This figure needs to be considered on the basis that the resultant sentence could possibly be higher. 

27.I turn to consider the applicant’s likely sentence under the revised guidelines for the individual counts.  The arithmetic starting point on Count 1 for 14,300 grammes of cocaine is 26 years and 9 months’ imprisonment; on Count 3 for 223.67 grammes of cocaine is 12 years and 3 months’ imprisonment; and on Count 4 for 748 grammes of cocaine (with 59.16 grammes of herbal cannabis) is 16 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.  As I have already explained, given the applicant’s role and culpability, an appropriate starting point for Count 1 is 29 years and 9 months’ imprisonment; for Count 3 is 15 years and 3 months’ imprisonment; and for Count 4 is 19 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.  After applying the generous discount of 36.5% to each of the notional starting points, the sentence on Count 1 is 18 years and 10 months’ imprisonment; on Count 3 is 9 years and 8 months’ imprisonment; and on Count 4 is 12 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.  As the applicant’s criminality involved multiple offences, it would be appropriate to order that the sentence on Count 3 be concurrent with the sentence on Count 4, and one year of the sentence on Count 4 be consecutive to the sentence on Count 1, resulting in a total sentence of 19 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.  The applicant’s role and culpability include the international element of the offending, which was acknowledged in respect of Count 1 and inferred in respect of Counts 3 and 4 because it was accepted that she was involved in the importation of cocaine into Hong Kong.  It may be argued on the applicant’s behalf that an international element does not apply to Counts 3 and 4, and even if that were the case, it would make no difference because the consecutive element of one year would still apply.

28.The difference between the sentence under the previous and revised guidelines is less than one year, and it would not be regarded as significant enough to warrant appellate interference.[17]

29.For the foregoing reasons, the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time is refused.  She has been informed of the consequences of renewing her application, including the risk of a loss of time order.

Mr Raymond HM Chan, SPP (Ag), of Department of Justice, for the respondent

The applicant appeared in person

[1]  D1 is a Colombian national who had overstayed in Hong Kong at the material time. She initially pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 3 and one count of possessing 0.63 gramme of cocaine (Count 2).  After reversing her pleas on Counts 1 and 3, D1’s case proceeded to trial, during which Deputy Judge Bruce SC ruled that there was no case to answer against D1 on Count 1 and she was acquitted accordingly. On 22 November 2021, following conviction on her own pleas to Counts 2 and 3, D1 was sentenced to 9 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

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

[3]  Appeal Bundle (AB), 6-13. See also AB, 19B-20L.

[4]  Parcels 1 and 2 were not collected and were seized by Customs officers.

[5]  Parcel 4 was subsequently found in a storage unit rented by D4 in To Kwa Wan, who carried it there on the same day. See, AB, 11-12, at [30]-[36].

[6]  AB, 30.

[7]  R v Lau Tak Ming & Anor [1990] 2 HKLR 370; HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437.

[8]  HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

[9]  HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

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

[11]  Under Huang Ruifang (No 3), 14,300 grammes of cocaine fall within the band of 5,000 to 15,000 grammes, which corresponds to 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment; 223.67 grammes of cocaine fall within the band of 200 to 500 grammes, which corresponds to 12 to 16 years’ imprisonment; and 748 grammes of cocaine fall within the band of 500 to 1,500 grammes, which corresponds to 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment. The 15,271.67 grammes of cocaine, falls with the band of 15,000 to 30,000 grammes, which corresponds to 27 to 30 years’ imprisonment.

[12]  This quantity falls within the band of under 2,000 grammes of cannabis, corresponding to a sentence of up to 16 months’ imprisonment. See HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329.

[13]  AB, 22A-B.

[14]  Huang Ruifang (No 3), at [45].

[15]  AB, 22M-Q. 

[16]  AB, 22P-S. 

[17]  HKSAR v Yusuf Lukman Adepoju [2026] HKCA 1050.