HKSAR v. Li Shing Chun

HCCC 111/2021

[2025] HKCFI 5491

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 111 OF 2021

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant faces one charge of conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug. It is alleged that between the 11th day of June, 2017 and the 4th day of July, 2017, he conspired together with Hui Ching-yi, Chan Shun-yip and other persons unknown to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely cocaine. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and he was convicted after trial by the unanimous verdict of the jury on 9 October 2025, that is yesterday.

From the evidence that was adduced at trial, it is revealed that at the material time Ms Hui Ching-yi was a 15-year-old girl who had just finished school. She was introduced to the defendant, known to her as Daniel, by another drug trafficker Marcus Wong. Since then, Ms Hui worked for Daniel and his syndicate and was engaged in a total of five trips between Shenzhen and Hong Kong.

In respect of the first trip, it occurred on 11 June 2017. On that day, the defendant contacted her and arranged to meet her at the Kowloon Tong Railway Station sometime shortly after noon. That was the first time she met Daniel, that is the defendant. Upon her arrival, she met the defendant together with the other co-conspirator Chan Shun-yip, who is also known as Otto Chan in this trial. During that meeting, Ms Hui was given a phone card for her to use during her trip in China and also she was given two telephone numbers for contact during the work.

She went to China on the instruction of the defendant and Otto Chan. She arrived at Shenzhen and received a suitcase from a male in a restaurant in Shenzhen, and then she returned to Hong Kong and arrived at Kwun Tong area. There she met the defendant again at Wai Yip Street of Kwun Tong. The defendant helped her to pay the outstanding transportation fee of $200. Then the defendant instructed her to hand over the suitcase to a man in a hotel nearby. She followed his instruction to hand over the suitcase. Eventually, later the same evening, the defendant paid a reward of $10,000 to Ms Hui in cash somewhere near her home. That was about the first trip.

In this first trip, the drug being conveyed by Ms Hui was a suitcase that was about 35 inches big in size. Ms Hui did not actually see what was being put inside the suitcase but she said that it was very heavy.

In respect of the second trip, it occurred on 18 June 2017. Around 16 June the defendant contacted Ms Hui again, telling her that there will be work on the 18th. On this occasion, he also demanded Ms Hui to provide him with her Hong Kong identity card information and her address proof. She followed his instructions and provided him with a copy of her Hong Kong identity card and her address proof.

Later, on 18 June she also went to Shenzhen, China for the second tour to carry one suitcase of drug back into Hong Kong. She said again this suitcase was about 35 inches in size, and it was very heavy. She did not have the opportunity to check the contents of the suitcase. Again, she handed over the suitcase to a person in a hotel in Kwun Tong. On the night of 18 June, the defendant handed over the reward of $10,000 to Ms Hui near to her home.

According to Ms Hui’s evidence, after the second trip the defendant contacted her again, telling her that in the next trip they had to change their mode of operation because it would be too risky. He told her that on the next occasion, she would have to spend one night in China before coming back to Hong Kong with the suitcase.

The third trip occurred on 21 June and the fourth trip occurred on 23 June. In respect of the fourth trip, before Ms Hui left Hong Kong, it was the defendant and his friend who met her downstairs of her home, and the defendant’s friend gave her a lift to the border where she travelled from Hong Kong to Shenzhen.

The fifth trip occurred on 4 July 2017. On this occasion, Ms Hui was given a suitcase that was a bit smaller in size, that was about 18 inches. But she said it was of about similar weight to the previous occasions.

On her way back to Hong Kong, after crossing the border she was intercepted by the Customs officers and eventually 20 blocks of cocaine were found in the suitcase that she was carrying.

Upon examination by the government chemist, that was confirmed to be 20 kilogrammes of solid cocaine containing 16.79 kilogrammes of cocaine narcotic with a retail value of over HK$20 million.

Eventually, the defendant was arrested by the police in respect of his conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drug together with Ms Hui and Otto Chan.

When he was first arrested by the police on 5 July 2017, he stated under caution that he believed the goods being delivered by Ms Hui were parallel goods. He admitted that he was the one who introduced Ms Hui to Otto Chan, and Marcus Wong was the person who introduced Ms Hui to him for the delivery purpose. He said that he was only engaged in the first two trips and he was responsible for paying the reward to Ms Hui afterwards.

After he was charged to court, the defendant was unconditionally released in December 2017. He was rearrested for the present case again in August 2019 and, on this occasion, he remained silent under caution.

In this trial, he gave evidence and told the court that he believed that the goods to be delivered by Ms Hui were gold, that means the operation involved smuggling of gold instead of dangerous drug. It is clear that the jury rejected his account of events by their guilty verdict.

It is clear from the evidence that the defendant was actively involved in the first two trips on 11 and 18 June respectively.

The defendant is now 31 years of age. He was 23 years old at the time of the offence and he has no previous criminal conviction. He is single. He has three siblings, and his mother used to work as a cleaning lady.

In mitigation, counsel Ms Money Lo informed me that after the defendant had finished school at Form 3 level, he started to work as a kitchen apprentice. Later in 2015 he injured his left hand at work. Since then he started to work as a kitchen casual worker. He also made his living by selling wooden plaques in mainland China from time to time. Counsel informed me that he was a filial son, that he had a supportive family and he was a person of good nature.

In respect of his role in this matter, counsel urged me to take into account the fact that he was only involved in the first two trips and he was acting under the instruction of Otto Chan who was the superior calling the shots in all five trips.

Counsel urged me to take into account the lower tariff in the new revised guideline and adopt a lenient sentence for the defendant, taking into account his relatively young age of 23 years at the time of the offence.

In sentencing the defendant, I do bear in mind the approach set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, and the clarification made in the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

This case involves quite a well-organised drug importation syndicate with good division of labour assigned to different persons. Besides the courier Ms Hui who was actually involved in the taking of the suitcase of drug back from Shenzhen into Hong Kong, there was the defendant and his boss Otto Chan who gave instructions to Ms Hui, and the defendant was also responsible for paying the reward to Ms Hui on the first two occasions.

There were also people in China responsible for handing over the suitcase of drug to Ms Hui at various locations. Also there were people in Hong Kong responsible to collect the suitcase of drug from Ms Hui at various locations. Sometimes one and sometimes two persons were involved in the collection of the suitcases.

Also, specific telephone cards or telephone numbers were being used by different members of this group. For example, by Ms Hui or Otto Chan for communication purpose whenever Ms Hui was engaged in the delivery of drug from mainland China to Hong Kong.

The evidence revealed that for the three-week period from 11 June to 4 July 2017, this syndicate was involved in a total of five occasions of importation of drug from Shenzhen into Hong Kong. Of course, the drug was imported in a suitcase on each occasion.

Counsel submitted that this court should bear in mind the relatively young age of the defendant at the time of the offence. He was 23 years old then. He was still young, but he could not be regarded as a person of extreme youth at the age of 23.

However, from the evidence the quantity and the type of drug involved in the first four trips from 11 June to 23 June 2017 are not specified. The evidence revealed that in respect of the first trip, the suitcase was 35 inches in size and it was very heavy. The second trip also involved a suitcase of 35 inches in size, and it was very heavy. The fifth trip, that is the trip in which Ms Hui was apprehended, involved a suitcase that was about 18 inches in size which was smaller. But Ms Hui said that it was of similar weight, she felt that it was of similar weight to the suitcases on the previous occasions. The fifth trip from the analysis by the government chemist, we know that the total amount of drug involved was 16.79 kilogrammes of cocaine narcotic.

For the offence of conspiracy, the sentencing court should take into account the duration of the conspiracy and whether multiple occasions of trafficking were involved, also the scale of the operation of the syndicates: see the case of HKSAR v Chung Ka Lun [2018] 4 HKLRD 229.

From the evidence of this case, it is clear to me that the defendant was actively involved in the first two trips that occurred on 11 and 18 June 2017 respectively. Those two trips extended over a period of eight days and two drug trafficking activities.

For the purpose of sentence, I would disregard the role played by him in the other three trips. That means I will only focus on his part in the first two trips because the evidence indicates that he was actively involved in those two trips.

In the case of HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing [2017] 5 HKLRD 799, the Court of Appeal stated that, “...unless the facts which give rise to the inferences and assumptions are clear‑cut, they will inevitably lean in favour of the defence.”

In sentencing the defendant, I also bear in mind the reasons for sentence given by Mr Justice Lee in the sentencing of the other co-conspirators Ms Hui Ching-yi and Mr Chan Shun-yip on 26 June 2019 in HCCC 357/2018. For the purpose of sentencing the defendant in the present case, I will also, like Mr Justice Lee, adopt 16.79 kilogrammes of cocaine narcotic as the quantification involved.

According to the revised guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the starting point for trafficking in between 15 kilogrammes and 30 kilogrammes of cocaine should be 27 to 30 years of imprisonment after trial.

In this case, a total of five trips involved a total of 16.79 kilogrammes of cocaine narcotic. On a mathematical calculation, the starting point for this amount of cocaine narcotic should be one of 27 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. This arithmetic starting point is appropriate for persons like couriers or storekeepers who are at the lower end of a drug trafficking hierarchy.

However, in the present case the role of the defendant was more significant than that of a pure courier or storekeeper. He was the one who was responsible to approach Marcus Wong, the other drug trafficker, to seek assistance to find a courier, a “desperado” in this case. He was the one who introduced the courier Ms Hui to Otto Chan. He was the one who met Ms Hui at the Kowloon Tong Railway Station on the first occasion, introducing her to Otto Chan, and the two of them gave her instructions and telephone cards, and told her about the details of the delivery job.

He was the one who was responsible to pay the reward of $10,000 per trip to Ms Hui in respect of the first and the second trip. In respect of the first trip, he was also the person who met Ms Hui in Kwun Tong after she carried the suitcase of drug back to Hong Kong. He paid for the outstanding transportation fee of $200 and he gave instruction for her to hand over the suitcase to another person at the lobby of the hotel nearby.

On the other hand, the role and culpability of the defendant was also aggravated by the fact that cross‑border trafficking was involved in this case, and the fact that Ms Hui was at the material time a minor of 15 years of age. Section 56A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134 provides that the use of a minor in drug trafficking entitles the court to pass a more severe sentence (see also the case of HKSAR v Wong Chun Hin [2019] 1 HKLRD 433).

However, I also bear in mind the fact that the Court stated in the case of Wong Chun Hin that the sentencing court should exercise restraint in determining the enhancement for the cross‑border factor and also the use of a minor so that an overly severe sentence should be avoided, especially for a young defendant.

In any event, taking into account all the circumstances of the case including the scale of the operation, the fact that the defendant was actively involved in a total of two trips, that means two activities of trafficking, his role which was higher than that of a courier, the use of a minor in those two operations and also the cross‑border factor, I consider that the appropriate ultimate starting point should be one of 30 years of imprisonment.

The personal circumstances and the fact that the defendant was a man of clear record do not serve, in my view, as any useful or valid mitigation factor.

The defendant was convicted after trial. In the absence of any valid mitigating feature, I will sentence him to 30 years’ imprisonment. This is the sentence I impose.