HKSAR V. CEDENO MEJIAS ANGEL RAFAEL

[2026] HKCA 127 Court of Appeal 3 February 2026 • CACC205/2025 • 5 min read

7 cases cited (0 HK, 7 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Outcome

Appeal allowed

The appeal was allowed and the appellant’s sentence accordingly reduced from 13 years and 1 month’s imprisonment to 12 years’ imprisonment.

Source: [2026] HKCA 127, Court of Appeal, decided 3 February 2026. Read directly from the judgment.

Judges (2)

Macrae Coram Zervos Coram

Counsel (2)

Department of Justice Firm Edward Lau Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

HKSAR Respondent Cedeno Mejias Angel Rafael Appellant

Case Significance

HKSAR v. Cedeno Mejias Angel Rafael [2026] HKCA 127 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 3 February 2026 concerning a sentence appeal. The Court of Appeal held: "The appeal was allowed and the appellant’s sentence accordingly reduced from 13 years and 1 month’s imprisonment to 12 years’ imprisonment," drawing on sentencing authorities including (1999) 2 HKCFAR 184, [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, [2009] 2 HKLRD 437, [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, [2022] 3 HKLRD 727 and [2021] 3 HKLRD 904, alongside [2019] HKCFI 646.

The decision was subsequently cited in HKSAR v. Ika Wilantika [2026] HKCFI 3792.

Summary

A Venezuelan national, Cedeno Mejias Angel Rafael, appealed against his sentence of 22 years' imprisonment for trafficking 963 grammes of cocaine (736g pure). The Court of Appeal considered the appropriate starting point and discounts, applying the revised sentencing guidelines from HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3). The sentence was reduced from 22 years to 19 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

By how much was the sentence reduced in HKSAR v. Cedeno Mejias Angel Rafael [2026] HKCA 127?

The Court of Appeal held: "The appeal was allowed and the appellant’s sentence accordingly reduced from 13 years and 1 month’s imprisonment to 12 years’ imprisonment," in a decision dated 3 February 2026.

Which later decision cited HKSAR v. Cedeno Mejias Angel Rafael [2026] HKCA 127?

HKSAR v. Cedeno Mejias Angel Rafael [2026] HKCA 127 was cited in HKSAR v. Ika Wilantika [2026] HKCFI 3792, a subsequent Court of First Instance decision.