HKSAR v. Chung Chun Lok

HCCC 25/2025

[2025] HKCFI 2744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 25 OF 2025

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug and the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs before a magistrate on 20 January this year.

Charge 1 alleges that on the 18th day of August 2021, outside Room 2, 6th Floor, Block B, Ka Ming Court on Castle Peak Road, he unlawfully trafficked in 6.07 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride. Charge 2 alleges that inside that particular Room 2, he unlawfully trafficked in 61.2 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride and 139.29 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’, on the same day.

According to the Summary of Facts to which he admitted at the time of his plea of guilty, on 18 August 2021 at about 8.45 am, he was seen entering Room 2 on the 6th Floor, Block B of Ka Ming Court. Then at about 9.56 am on the same day, he walked out of the room and he was intercepted by the police. At the material time, the police found in the rucksack being carried by the defendant a total of 20 packets or 20 blocks of a dangerous drug containing a total of 6.97 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 6.07 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride. At the same time, he was also in possession of two mobile phones.

Upon his arrest, the defendant stated under caution that he was delivering drugs for others as he was in debt and those drugs would be delivered to Sham Tseng.

Subsequently, the police searched Room 2 of that particular building and inside the room they found a total of four canvas bags and one rucksack containing 141 packets containing 140.64 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 139.29 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’, as well as 209 packets or blocks of heroin amounting to a total of 72.86 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 61.2 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride.

Under caution, the defendant stated that he rented that room and he was responsible for stock-taking. The drugs contained in the tea packing were brought to the room by himself, but he did not know who had placed the other drugs in the room.

Enquiries revealed that he was the tenant of that room for the period between 1 February 2021 and 31 January 2023 for a monthly rental of HK$7,200.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant stated under caution that:

- He was a lifeguard earning about HK$20,000 monthly. He rented the room under his name originally as the warehouse of the online business which he intended to set up together with a business partner. However, the business never materialised and he was in debt totalling HK$130,000. He was in need of money to repay those debts.

- Around March 2021, his business partner introduced him to work for Ah Sing and he was also given a Samsung mobile phone for further contact with Ah Sing. In late July 2021, Ah Sing called him and instructed him to buy a rucksack, exchange the rucksack with another person in Nam Cheong and bring the exchanged rucksack to the room. He complied with those instructions.

- After returning to the room, he noticed that there were four canvas bags and a paper box which were not there before, and he found that they contained ‘Ice’ and heroin, dangerous drugs. He also checked the content of the rucksack and found that it contained ‘Ice’. He fully realised that his work with Ah Sing was to deal with drugs, but he still carried on with the work because he was in need of money.

- On 17 August 2021, Ah Sing called him and asked him to return to the room the next day to conduct stock-taking of the drugs in the room. He did so and found that there were 229 packets of heroin and 141 packets of ‘Ice’. Ah Sing also instructed him to take 10 packets of ‘Ice’ from the canvas bags and put them into a rucksack on the floor. He did.

- Upon the instruction of Ah Sing, he also put 20 packets of heroin into the rucksack for delivery to Sham Tseng, and he was intercepted by the police while he left the room. He said he had yet to receive the monetary rewards as promised by Ah Sing for the delivery of the drugs.

DNA examination of the packet of the drugs revealed that his DNA was found on a packet of heroin hydrochloride in the rucksack being carried by him, and on a glove being worn by him.

The estimated street value of all the dangerous drugs seized in this case was about HK$227,320,140.

The defendant now accepts and admits that he was knowingly in in possession of all the dangerous drugs seized in this case for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

The defendant is a man of clear record. He is now 25 years of age. He is single and lived with his family and sibling at the time of the offence. He was a student at the time of his arrest, studying full time for the associate degree of applied science at the Hong Kong Baptist University. Also he was a part-time lifeguard and a part-time technician apprentice earning around HK$20,000 per month at the material time.

In mitigation, counsel Mr Paul Leung informed me that he committed the offences because he lived an extravagant life. He was fond of buying and owning first-hand and second-hand private cars. At the material time, he was in possession of two private cars, and he was in debt of about HK$130,000 before the incident.

Counsel said he initially rented the room concerned for two years because he would like to start an online business together with a business partner called Ah Chung. However, that did not materialise and Ah Chung introduced him to the drug trafficker Ah Sing to earn quick money. He was promised a remuneration of $20,000 to $30,000 per month if he acted under Ah Sing’s instructions. He realised that it was drug-related activities later, however he still continued to work for Ah Sing because of the quick money. He was tasked to conduct stock check and delivery of the drugs to others. Counsel submitted that he was not remunerated at all before his arrest.

In mitigation, counsel asked me to take into account his assistance to the authorities. He invited the court to appraise the level of his assistance and accord him a suitable sentencing discount if appropriate.

The information that had been laid before me was the fact that on 6 October 2023, that is more than two years after his arrest, he had provided a five‑page Chinese non-prejudicial statement to the police in the presence of defence counsel Mr Leung.

According to this statement which counsel did not even bother to submit an English translation until the request of the court and I received an English translation this morning, he provided the full name of this person called Ah Chung who was supposed to be his business partner, and he provided the nickname of the drug trafficker called Ah Sing, that is, ‘Ah Sing’.

He provided the mobile phone number used by those two persons more than two years ago. And he was unable to provide any further information except that he first met this Ah Chung in year 2018, that is more than three years before his arrest, in the orientation education camp of the Baptist University. He was able to give a very vague or general description of Ah Chung to the police, and I quote what he said: “He is a Hong Konger, currently approximately 26 to 27 years of age, of medium built, about 1.7 metres tall, and wears glasses”. That was all the information he provided to the police about Ah Chung.

In respect of Ah Sing, he could only give a mobile phone number used by Ah Sing more than two years ago, and the fact that his nickname was ‘Ah Sing’. Indeed, I noted that in the whole statement, he did not even bother to tell the gender of those two persons and one has to speculate that they are indeed males instead of females. As for the rest of the so called drug-related activities of those persons, he just repeated what he had told the police in the video‑recorded interview after his arrest.

At the same time, counsel also submitted a total of about 50 pages of documents in mitigation, consisting of 10 different mitigation letters prepared by various persons, a number of certificates and donation records, and extracts from the book of Sentencing in Hong Kong. But counsel did not even bother to submit one single copy of any one of the authorities that was mentioned in the written mitigation.

Those mitigating letters were prepared by the defendant himself, his mother and father respectively, the chairman of different district rural committees, the chaplain of prison - the prison chaplain who did not meet the defendant until he was remanded in custody, letters from the part‑time ex-employers of the defendant, and letters prepared by the Hong Kong Lion House Dragon Lion Sports Association, the supervisor of a certain limited certifying that he was engaged in dragon lion sports activities and some other Chinese martial art activities in the past.

However, what had been brought to my attention included documents such as the certificates prepared by various institutes showing that he had made a number of donations, like donations of facial masks and donations of certain medical materials at the time of COVID, and he had made certain donations to some communities in Hong Kong. He was also a supporter of a certain child sponsorship programme in Hong Kong since 2018. Because of his participation in the lion dragon dance sporting activities, he also participated in certain community services including services to certain homes for the aged. Those are matters that had been drawn to my attention even though counsel rightly conceded that previous good character do not amount to any valid mitigating factor in serious offences like trafficking in dangerous drugs.

In sentencing the defendant, I do bear in mind the principle set out in the case of HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75 that when the court considered two offences when different quantities of drugs were found in the defendant’s possession on the same day but at different locations, the court should regard the two offences as representing one occasion of possession of the total amount of drugs and impose the sentences on both offences for that total, making the sentences concurrent with one another so that the true culpability of the defendant can be rightly assessed.

In this case, I am of the view that both charges arose out of the same incident. Indeed the drug found on his person in Charge 1 was just taken out from the drugs stored in the room. The remaining drugs that were found in the room constituted Charge 2. So I would take a global view of the matter and I will adopt the approach stated in the case of Wan Lau Mei. I also bear in mind the approach settled by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

The 1st charge involves a total of 6.07 kilogrammes of heroin narcotic. The 2nd charge involves 612 kilogrammes of heroin narcotic and 139.29 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’ narcotic. So the total amount of narcotic involved in both charges is 206.56 kilogrammes of dangerous drugs.

According to the revised guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, for quantities above 1.5 kilogrammes of dangerous drug the guidelines in respect of heroin and ‘Ice’ are the same because any differences in potency and harm become eclipsed by the sheer size of the quantity. Also the court reminded sentencing judges that for a quantity of over 30 kilogrammes of dangerous drug, the starting point should be over 30 years of imprisonment after trial. However, the sentencing court should bear in mind that the sentence would fall within the discretion of the judge who should bear in mind the practical and realistic ceiling of 35 years’ imprisonment as stated in the case of HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777.

In this particular case, I consider that the role of the defendant was more than that of a simple courier. According to his admission in the video-recorded interview and the Summary of Facts which he agreed, he was the person who rented the room even though the initial use of the room was for some other business. However, even after he realised that Ah Sing was going to use the room for storage of drugs, he continued to keep the drugs in his room. So he provided the place of storage for the dangerous drugs.

And in late July 2021, he brought a rucksack of ‘Ice’ back to the room. On the day before his arrest, he was engaged in the stock-taking of all the drugs in the room for Ah Sing, and he also put 10 packets of ‘Ice’ from a canvas bag into a rucksack. On the day of his arrest, he was on the way to deliver 20 packets of heroin to Sham Tseng for Ah Sing.

So, taking into account his role, I consider that he was both a storekeeper and a courier as well as a person who provided the place of storage. He was also engaged in the stock-taking of the drug.

In consideration of his culpability, I also bear in mind the fact that huge quantities of two different kinds of drugs were found in this case. That means I have to take into account the ability of the drug trafficker to cater for a wider market and also the effect of the combination of the drugs on the drug abusers. All of these matters justify a further increase in the starting point of the case.

Taking into account his role and culpability including the huge quantity of the drugs concerned, the fact that two types of drugs were involved, I consider that the appropriate notional starting point after trial should be 32 years’ imprisonment.

In respect of his so‑called assistance provided to the authorities which was reflected in a five-page NPS given to the police more than two years after his arrest, as I said, what he had provided was mainly the full name and the old mobile phone number, a very general description about the appearance of Ah Chung, and the fact that he met Ah Chung about several years before his arrest at the university campus. In respect of Ah Sing, what he said was indeed only a nickname ‘Ah Sing’ and a mobile phone number that was used more than two years ago.

More importantly, I noticed from the NPS that at the time when the statement was being taken in the presence of his lawyer, in fact the police examined his iPhone and the Samsung mobile phone together with him. According to his admission in the Summary of Facts, he said Ah Sing contacted him and gave instructions to him via the Samsung mobile phone. However, after examination of the two mobile phones, it was confirmed there was nothing, no single message or conversation, about dangerous drugs or instructions given to him by either Ah Chung or Ah Sing about trafficking in dangerous drugs at all. So there was nothing that could be found from the mobile phones after examination of the contents.

I consider that the information given by him in that NPS was of no practical use and no practical value to the investigation of the police. Having assessed the nature and the extent of the so‑called assistance rendered in the content of that statement, that I do not see any risk or danger faced by him or his family, the lack of usefulness of the information, the vagueness of the information and the fact that no fruitful result was obtained by the police as a result of those information, I consider that he is not entitled to any further discount of sentence for this so-called assistance to the authorities, especially bearing in mind the seriousness of the charges concerned and the substantial quantity of the drugs concerned.

Having considered all the information before me, I consider the only valid mitigation is indeed his early plea of guilty to both charges which would entitle him to the full one‑third discount from the starting point of 32 years’ imprisonment. So, after the one-third discount, the overall sentence would become one of 21 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

As I have previously pointed out, previous good character do not amount to any meaningful mitigation for serious offences like trafficking in dangerous drug, not to mention that in the present case very substantial quantity of ‘Ice’ and heroin were involved. However, on the other hand, I noted that for years before his arrest the defendant was engaged in contribution of positive services to the community including donation of materials at the time of COVID, sponsoring some child activities, and contributing to the visits of different community services like homes for the aged.

Taking into account all those circumstances, I am prepared to exercise my discretion to give him a token discount as an act of mercy. And so, on that basis, I give him a further 4 months’ discount and reduce the overall sentence to 21 years’ imprisonment.

Following the principle in the case of Wan Lau Mei, I will adopt 21 years of imprisonment as the sentence for each of Charge 1 and Charge 2, and order the sentences to be served wholly concurrent to each other.

So the ultimate sentence is 21 years’ imprisonment.