Case Document

100%

HCCC 21/2025

[2025] HKCFI 4693

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 21 OF 2025

________________________

	HKSAR
	v
	YUEN MAN-HO, NELSON	Accused

________________________

Before:

Hon Wilson Chan J in Court

Date of Hearing:	23 July 2025
Date of Sentence:	23 July 2025

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 16 January 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed his plea and his agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel. During the course of this hearing, the prosecution has applied to amend certain portions of the Summary of Facts, these are also read out and admitted by the defendant.

2.The particulars of the charge state that on 7 September 2023, near Lamppost VA2353, Sha Tau Kok Road - Shek Chung Au, Sha Tau Kok, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 23.85 kilogrammes of a solid containing 18.59 kilogrammes of cocaine.

3.The amended Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows. At about 1.58 pm on 7 September 2023, police officers in plainclothes found there was a private car with registration number YC3127 (“YC3127”) parked near Lamppost VA2353, Sha Tau Kok Road - Shek Chung Au, Sha Tau Kok, New Territories. Police officers then saw the defendant parking a private car with registration number XY7639 (“Private Car”), with the engine still running, next to YC3127, alighting from the Private Car, opening trunk of YC3127 and taking out some items. The defendant then returned to the driver’s seat of the Private Car.

4.PW1, a police officer, opened the door next to the driver’s seat of the Private Car and saw the defendant, who was wearing a pair of plastic gloves, sitting at the driver’s seat and turning his upper body towards the middle row of the Private Car. PW1 shouted “Police. Don’t move.” The defendant suddenly turned around, put his hands on the steering wheel of the Private Car intending to drive but was subdued.

5.Upon search, the following items were found at the middle row of the Private Car:

(1) one white paper bag containing 10 transparent resealable bags containing a total of 9.6 kilogrammes of a solid containing a total of 7.43 kilogrammes of cocaine;

(2) two pink plastic bags each containing one transparent resealable plastic bag containing a total of 1.88 kilogrammes of a solid containing a total of 1.46 kilogrammes of cocaine;

(3) one black bag containing 13 transparent resealable plastic bags containing a total of 12.37 kilogrammes of a solid containing a total of 9.7 kilogrammes of cocaine;

(4) a box of plastic gloves;

(5) a yellow bag, which contained a black bag and a pink plastic bag, and a stack of pink plastic bags; and

(6) car keys of YC3127 and the Private Car.

6.In total, 23.85 kilogrammes of a solid containing 18.59 kilogrammes of cocaine was seized.

7.Two blue plastic boxes were found on both YC3127 and the Private Car.

8.The defendant was arrested and stated under verbal caution that as he was indebted, he trafficked dangerous drugs for a person called “Chu Jai” at a reward of $2,000 for a block of “Coke”. In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant stated, inter alia, under caution that:

(1) He was indebted for about $300,000 due to online gambling about three months ago.

(2) His friend, “Wah Jai”, learnt of his debt and introduced Chu Jai to him. Upon the instruction of Wah Jai, he bought a mobile phone, that is, the black iPhone found on him. Chu Jai gave him a SIM card and asked him to add the contact of Chu Jai. Chu Jai recruited the defendant for trafficking in dangerous drugs. Chu Jai taught him where to pick up the vehicles and dangerous drugs.

(3) At about 12 pm on 7 September 2023, he drove the Private Car to Sha Tau Kok to collect all the 25 transparent resealable plastic bags which contained dangerous drugs from the two blue plastic boxes which were kept in YC3127 and put them onto the Private Car. He was about to deliver the dangerous drugs to Ng Chow Road South as per the instruction of Chu Jai. He, however, was arrested after he had put all the dangerous drugs onto the Private Car.

(4) He did not know the weight and value of the dangerous drugs found and seized.

(5) He wore a pair of gloves at the material time upon the instruction of Chu Jai. He took a pair of gloves from the box of gloves found in the Private Car and wore them to avoid leaving his fingerprints on the dangerous drugs.

(6) The two blue plastic boxes found on both YC3127 and the Private Car were used for storing dangerous drugs.

(7) The yellow bag, which was contained in a black bag, and stack of pink plastic bags were provided to him by Chu Jai for carrying dangerous drugs. Both YC3127 and the Private Car belonged to Chu Jai.

(8) He had not received any monetary reward and Chu Jai had not told him how he would be paid. He had never met Chu Jai and they only exchanged messages.

9.The prevailing estimated street value of the dangerous drugs seized was $26,258,850 in the form of powder or $30,838,050 in the form of crack.

10.At all material times, the defendant unlawfully possessed the dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of trafficking.

11.Regarding the personal background of the defendant, the defendant was born on 26 April 2000. He was aged 23 at the time of the commission of the offence and now 25 years old. After completing Secondary Form 3, he received vocational training in auto-repairs. At the time of the offence, the defendant had worked full-time in the same car detailing company for four years, earning around $20,000 per month.

12.Prior to his arrest, he lived with his parents and his elder sister. I am told that at the material time, the defendant was under great financial distress. The defendant was enticed by an acquaintance to commit the subject offence in order to ease his financial burden.

13.The defendant has a clear record.

14.The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186. The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band (or bracket) applicable to the quantity of drug concerned. The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on evidence before the court. The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes. It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant. The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial. The fifth step is to have regard to any matter of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”. The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced sentence”.

15.Regarding the first step, for 18.59 kilogrammes of cocaine, the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 27 to 30 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, at paragraph 62.

16.Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a courier, in that he was to deliver the drug for someone for a reward.

17.Third, for 18.59 kilogrammes of cocaine, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a notional sentence after trial of 27 years and 8.6 months’ imprisonment. Based on my finding of the defendant’s role and culpability under step 2 above, I would adopt that as the notional sentence after trial in this case.

18.Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the notional sentence after trial.

19.Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is his timely guilty plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount. Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reduced to 18 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

20.Finally, I consider that a sentence of 18 years and 5 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and in the circumstances of the defendant.

21.Defendant, you are accordingly sentenced to 18 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.