HKSAR v. Wong Vincent

HCCC 376/2023

[2025] HKCFI 2576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 376 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charge

1.On 16 November 2023, the defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The count involved 24.91 kilogrammes of a solid containing 18.98 kilogrammes of cocaine.  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 29 August 2023 and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed his guilty plea to the trafficking count and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.The facts of the case can be summarized as follows. 

3.On 19 June 2020, a consignment sent via DHL from the Netherlands arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport for customs clearance. Upon inspection, 168 plastic buckets were found inside the consignment and they contained a total of 24.91 kilogrammes of a solid containing 18.98 kilogrammes of cocaine.

4.On the next day, a Customs Officer, disguised as a DHL staff, called the telephone number of the consignee as stated on the consignment.  A male answered the call and confirmed that there would be someone at the consignee address to collect the consignment. 

5.Customs Officers in plainclothes then went to the building of the consignee address to carry out a controlled delivery.  When they arrived at the 19^th floor of the building, they called the male again who said that he would ask someone to collect the consignment.

6.Soon afterwards, the defendant came out from Room A11 on the 19^th floor and approached the Customs Officers.  The defendant checked the details of the consignee as shown on the airway bills and stamped a company chop to acknowledge receipt of the consignment.

7.The defendant was then arrested.  Under caution, he admitted, inter alia, that:

(i)  a person had asked him to collect the consignment for a reward of $3,000;

(ii)  the person had instructed him to take out a box from each layer of the consignment, to weigh the substance in each box and pack every one kilogramme of such substance into a bag, and to call the person afterwards.

8.Text messages were later found from the defendant’s mobile phone showing that there had been communications with a person about the defendant collecting a parcel and receiving a reward of $10,000.

9.The estimated street value of the cocaine seized was approximately HK$36,343,690.

10.In the Summary of Facts, the defendant also admitted that at all material times, he knowingly possessed the cocaine seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Background and mitigation

11.The defendant was aged 17 years old at the time of the offence and he is now 21 years old.  He has achieved up to Form 3 education and has a clear record.  Before the arrest, he lived with his parents and elder brother in Ma On Shan. 

12.I was told by his counsel Mr. Victor Ho that the defendant committed the offence purely for quick money.  He was not aware of the serious consequences of the offence and the likely lengthy sentence was something completely beyond his expectation.  Mr. Ho also pointed out that during the arrest, the defendant had co-operated with the Customs Officers and he had made full and detailed admissions.

13.On behalf of the defendant, Mr. Ho has submitted a total of six letters to the Court in mitigation.  In his own letter, the defendant spoke of his huge regret for the stupidity of his actions, of the unwavering support from his family members, and of his promise to rehabilitate himself and not to re-offend in the future.  His parents spoke of their willingness to continue to support their son despite the lengthy sentence that he will have to face.  His grandmother pleaded for leniency and his auntie asked to give the defendant another chance.  A priest who has known the defendant since his incarceration spoke of the positive transformation that the defendant has undergone in admitting his guilt and realising the true value of his family support.  A social worker who has known the defendant since 2018 spoke of the bad influence from his peers that had resulted in his offending.

14.Whilst the consignment was sent from the Netherlands, Mr. Ho invited the Court to take the view that the defendant’s role was limited to receiving the consignment in Hong Kong and that he was not in any way involved in the importation of the consignment.  Mr. Ho contended that the defendant was simply instructed to receive the consignment at a local industrial building instead of a post office, and he made no admission that he knew the consignment was sent from abroad.  Mr. Ho thus relied on the case of HKSAR v Ali Qasim [2020] HKCA 56 (unreported and dated 14 January 2020)  in which Macrae VP cautioned (at §27)  against the danger of a label such as “international element” in that it can sometimes obscure the factual differences that exist between cases involving the importation of dangerous drugs. 

Sentence

15.In sentencing the defendant, I will follow the six steps as set out 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.

16.The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question.  In the present case, Mr. Ho accepted that with the total quantity of 18.98 kilogrammes of cocaine, the starting point should be about 27 years and 9 months’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 at §62.  That starting point is also confirmed by Ms Winnie Mok, counsel acting for the prosecution.

17.The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court.  In short, as instructed by another person, the defendant received the consignment during the controlled delivery carried out by the Customs Officers.

18.The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band the defendant should come.  In my assessment, the defendant’s role was no more than that of a storekeeper cum courier.

19.The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  The defendant has a clear record.  In the circumstances of this case, I am prepared to accept Mr. Ho’s submission that his role was limited to receiving the consignment locally and he was not involved in its importation to Hong Kong.  I therefore do not find any applicable aggravating factor in the present case.

20.The fifth step is to consider the mitigating factors, if any.  I will take into account the defendant’s guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity, and there are special circumstances on the papers which justify a lenient view to be taken of the defendant.  Therefore, I will give a 40% discount from the starting point and reduce the sentence from 27 years and 9 months’ imprisonment by 40% and round it off to 16 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

21.Lastly, I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 16 years and 7 months.

Exhibits

22.Order in terms of the Prosecution’s application, not objected to by the Defence, was granted.

Ms Winnie Mok, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the Prosecution

Mr. Victor Ho, instructed by Cheung and Liu, Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the Defendant