The defendant pleaded guilty on 31 October 2024 in the magistracy to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. He admitted the Summary of Facts dated 25 July 2024. He was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
On 6 March 2025, the prosecution filed a set of Amended Charge Committed for Sentence. The amendment being the quantity of narcotic content from 52.188 grammes to 52.188 kilogrammes. This is a substantive amendment in a dangerous drug-related offence, albeit plainly and undesirably due to a typographical error. In the circumstances, plea was taken from the defendant on the basis of the Amended Charge before me, and the defendant pleaded guilty to it.
The Summary of Facts remains unchanged as it does not contain the same typographical error. Mr Tze for the defendant confirmed the defendant’s admission of the Summary of Facts.
Admitted Facts
The facts of the case that the defendant has admitted can be summarised as follows for the present purpose. On the morning of 30 October 2022, the defendant was intercepted by the police when he was leaving his home. He was at the time carrying a white suitcase and a black fabric bag. He was brought back into his home by the police. Upon search of the white suitcase and black fabric bag, 52.188 kilogrammes of cocaine was found therein. Upon arrest and caution, the defendant admitted trafficking in dangerous drugs for others as he was in need of money.
In his subsequent video-recorded interview under caution, he stated these. His wife incurred gambling debts of about $600,000 to $700,000 several years ago. He wanted to repay the debt. In July 2022, he met one Ah Ming in a bar in Wan Chai. Ah Ming introduced him to drug trafficking work to earn quick money. Ah Ming gave him a mobile phone number for contact purposes. He asked the defendant to call him with an unregistered prepaid SIM card.
Several days later, the defendant called that number and reached a man called Jai Jai. Jai Jai promised him a reward of $3,500 for each block of dangerous drugs delivered. The reward would be paid upon the sale of all the dangerous drugs which would take one to two months.
About a week before his arrest, the defendant went to a place in Yuen Long to pick up a suitcase and bring it home on the instruction of Jai Jai. He saw its contents, but he did not know which specific kind of dangerous drugs they were.
The day before his arrest, he again went to pick up stuff from the same spots on Jai Jai’s instructions. When he was intercepted by the police, he was following Jai Jai’s instructions to take the dangerous drugs downstairs of his home to wait for Jai Jai’s phone call. He did not change the dangerous drugs packaging and he did not understand the meaning of the labels on the packaging.
On Jai Jai’s instructions, he copied the contents of a piece of paper placed inside a white suitcase onto a white envelope. He had not received the reward for drug trafficking yet.
The estimated prevailing street value of the cocaine in the case was $55.15 million if calculated based on the powder form or $107.5 million if based on crack cocaine.
Background and Mitigation
Based on the defendant’s antecedent statement, his criminal record and the submissions of Mr Tze, the defendant’s background is as follows.
The defendant was 43 years old at the time of offence. He is now 45 years old. He has studied up to Form 3 level. He is married with a 19-year-old daughter. He was a casual construction worker and delivery worker.
He has one conviction of possession of dangerous drugs in 2009 for which he was sentenced to probation for 12 months. He committed the present offence because he was in need of money to repay his wife’s gambling debt and the living and medical expenses of his family members. As a result, he was used by the drug dealer as a courier. He has yet to receive any reward. During the remand period, the defendant has enrolled in the list of liver donation and he is willing to donate part of his liver when required.
Mr Tze submitted six letters respectively written by the defendant’s wife, daughter, mother, elders, priests, and friend. The daughter and mother’s medical proof is also provided. I have read them all. They all confirmed that the defendant was a good father, filial son, and a kind person, and that he committed the offence because of financial hardship. The daughter and mother, while suffering from certain illnesses, are fortunately not chronically ill.
Mr Tze has also submitted a letter written by the defendant himself. I accept that he is genuinely remorseful over the present offence.
As for the sentence, Mr Tze submitted that the starting point for sentence should be around 31 years 6 months of imprisonment. He submitted that the defendant was just a courier/storekeeper. He urged the court not to treat the defendant’s previous conviction as an aggravating factor.
Finally, he asked that full credit be given to the defendant’s plea and a certain reduction be given on the basis of his personal and family background.
Sentence
The Court of Appeal has laid down new sentencing guidelines for trafficking in cocaine amongst other dangerous drugs in
the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234 on 5 March 2025. Approximately from trafficking in 500 grammes of cocaine onwards, the applicable tariffs have become lower than before. Although the present offence was committed before the new sentencing guidelines have been laid down, Article 12(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights stipulates that:
“If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.”
There are 52.188 kilogrammes of cocaine in the present case. Although the sentence imposed on trafficking in this quantity falls within the sentencer’s discretion whether adopting the previous or new guidelines, when considering the appropriate sentence including when considering the cases cited by Mr Tze, I shall bear in mind the principle in the new guidelines that the tariffs for trafficking in larger quantities of cocaine have been lowered.
I now consider the six steps as stipulated in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of narcotics concerned. According to Huang Ruifang, trafficking in between 15 kilogrammes and 30 kilogrammes of cocaine should attract a starting point for sentence of 27 to 30 years of imprisonment. Above 30 kilogrammes, sentences will fall within the discretion of judges bearing in mind the practical and realistic ceiling of 35 years’ imprisonment as established in HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777 (decided on 8 August 2024), and the legislative maximum of life imprisonment for cases of truly exceptional gravity.
There are 52.188 kilogrammes of cocaine in the present case. The starting point is within my discretion. Since the quantity is much above 30 kilogrammes, the starting point should be between 30 and 35 years’ imprisonment.
I have considered the cases cited by Mr Tze, namely HKSAR v Li Wing Lok [2024] HKCFI 152 (decided on 6 December 2023), and HKSAR v Ho Lap Wai [2025] HKCFI 186 (decided on 20 November 2024). In the former, the court adopted a starting point of 31 years 6 months for trafficking in 46.2 kilogrammes of cocaine. This case was decided before Sum Ka Wa. In the latter which was decided after Sum Ka Wa but before Huang Ruifang, the starting point was 32 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in 82.9 kilogrammes of cocaine. These are first instance cases, not guideline cases.
Bearing in mind the principle in the new guidelines that the tariffs for trafficking in larger quantities of cocaine have been lowered, I adopt a starting point of 31 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
Step two is to assess the role of the defendant. The defendant went to Yuen Long to pick up dangerous drugs at least twice on his own admission and was waiting to deliver the dangerous drugs when the police intercepted him. He also helped Jai Jai to copy contents clearly related to the dangerous drugs onto a white envelope. I find him to be an active courier cum storekeeper.
Step three is to decide where within the guidelines the defendant should lie. He was an active courier cum storekeeper, but still not higher up than a courier or storekeeper. Having considered all the circumstances, I am prepared not to enhance the starting point. In other words, the starting point remains as 31 years 6 months.
Step four deals with aggravating factors, if any. The defendant’s previous conviction was for simple possession of dangerous drug and is not regarded as a similar offence for the present purpose (see HKSAR v Wan Wai Lun [2018] HKCA 30). In any event, that conviction was recorded in 2009. The defendant was already 29 years old at that time, yet the sentence was only a probation order for 12 months. It can be reasonably inferred that the factual matrix of the case must have brought the defendant’s culpability to the lower end of the spectrum. In the circumstances, I will not regard it as an aggravating factor.
Step five considers the mitigating factors. I do not regard the defendant’s personal or family circumstances as any mitigating factor. As the Court of Appeal emphasised in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437, at paragraph 32:
“As for mitigation, the grievousness of the offence - a description that is born of the recognition of the dreadful misery caused to victims and their families and the serious harm to society generally - dictates that meaningful mitigation, apart from the plea of guilty, is rarely available. The message must consistently be delivered, even to the vulnerable such as the relatively young and those who say they need money whether for themselves or for the benefit of family members who are ill, that the vast majority of vulnerable people do not succumb to pressure and do not resolve their problems by engaging in this illicit and dreadful trade.”
The only mitigating factor open to the defendant is his guilty plea entered at the earliest opportunity. For that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount. That brings down the sentence to 21 years of imprisonment.
Finally, I consider this sentence fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment.