HKSAR v. Hui Kwan Ho

HCCC 421/2024

[2025] HKCFI 5747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 421 OF 2024

____________________

____________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.Defendant, HUI Kwan-ho, faces one count of “Trafficking in a dangerous drug”, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

2.The subject matter of the charge involves 250 grammes of a solid containing 216 grammes of ketamine.

3.Defendant pleaded guilty to this charge in the Eastern Magistrates’ Court on 5 December 2024 and admitted the summary of facts.  The case was committed to this Court for sentence.

4.He now appears before me for sentencing.

THE FACTS

5.The summary of facts reveal that on 17 September 2023, police officers on an anti-narcotics operation intercepted Defendant in Lam Tin.  He was carrying a black plastic bag heading towards a taxi which was found to contain a package with 250 grammes of a solid, later confirmed by the Government Chemist to contain 216 grammes of ketamine.

6.Under caution, Defendnat stated that he had been instructed to retrieve the bag from a flowerbed outside Block 17 of Sceneway Garden.  He did not receive any payment for this act, as he was arrested immediately.  The estimated street value of the drugs was HK$122,000.

7.Defendant subsequently admitted that he knowingly possessed the drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

MITIGATION

8.Defendant is 19 years of age, having been born on 16 May 2006.  He is a Hong Kong resident with education up to Form 3 level.  Prior to his arrest, he was employed as a cook. He is still single and living with his parents at the time of arrest.

9.A mitigation letter from Defendant expresses his deep remorse.  He acknowledges the severe harm drugs cause to society and regrets the financial and emotional burden his act have placed on his family, particularly his elderly grandparents whose health has suffered.

10.Letters from his parents and grandparents attest to his fundamentally good character, his filial nature, and their belief that this offence was a result of youthful folly and poor judgment rather than inherent criminality.  They have outlined a concrete support plan for his rehabilitation upon release.

11.It is submitted that Defendant has taken positive steps towards self-improvement while in custody, having completed vocational training courses in hairdressing and construction site safety.

12.Furthermore, he provided a text message to the police in January 2025, offering information on a drug dealer.  While this did not directly lead to an immediate arrest in that specific case, it is urged that this demonstrates his genuine cooperation and remorse.

13.Ms. Flora Cheng, counsel for Defendant emphasizes his clear record, his confined role as a courier expecting a relatively small reward (HK$2,000), and his timely guilty plea.

SENTENCING CONSIDERATION

14.In Secretary for Justice v CHAU Tsz-tim CAAR 4/2014 (15 January 2015), it was held that drug trafficking is an evil business and the courts have repeatedly emphasized that whoever carries on such an evil business, irrespective of his/her background or the circumstances in which the offences are committed, can expect no mercy, otherwise the “aged”, the “young” or the “crippled” will be encouraged to take part. It is, therefore, not in the interest of the community to sentence even young offenders of serious drug trafficking offences to the Training Centre. A Training Centre Order (an average period of detention of 18 months to 2 years)does not possess the qualities needed for a deterrent sentence and can certainly be perceived as a lenient sentence for serious drug trafficking offences and can be so described by drug traffickers to entice youngsters to take part.  The court must guard against such possibility in the interest of the community.

15.The only suitable and available sentencing option is therefore an immediate imprisonment.

16.In sentencing, I shall apply the established six-step approach set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

FIRST STEP – GRAVITY OF THE OFFENCE

17.The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence with reference to the type and quantity of the drug.  The sentencing tariff for trafficking in ketamine is authoritatively laid down in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1.  For quantities between 50 and 300 grammes, the starting point after trial is 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment.

18.The quantity in this case is 216 grammes of ketamine.  Applying the Hii Siew Cheng guideline, a starting point at the upper end of the range is warranted.  I set the starting point at 7 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.

SECOND AND THIRD STEPS – ROLE, CULPABILITY, AND PLACEMENT WITHIN THE BAND

19.The second step is to assess Defendant’s role and culpability.  The third step is to identify his placement within the relevant sentencing band.

20.I accept the defence counsel’s submission that Defendant’s role was that of a courier simpliciter.  There is no evidence to suggest his involvement extended to management, packaging, or distribution.  The guidelines in Herry Jane Yusuph are based on the courier or storekeeper, which represents the least culpable category.

21.I therefore find that Defendant falls squarely within the baseline category of a courier.  No upward adjustment from the starting point based on his role is required.

FOURTH STEP – AGGRAVATING FACTORS

22.I must consider whether any aggravating factors warrant an enhancement of the sentence.

23.There are no overt aggravating features such as a more sophisticated role, or trafficking in multiple types of drugs.  Defendant has a clear record and I see no reason to enhance the sentence on this step.

FIFTH STEP – MITIGATING FACTORS

24.The fifth step requires consideration of all mitigating factors.

25.Defendant is entitled to the customary one-third discount for his early guilty plea, which he entered at the first available opportunity.  

26.His young age, clear record, genuine remorse as demonstrated in his letter and his efforts at rehabilitation and his attempt to cooperate with the authorities are all personal mitigating factors that I have taken into account.  Because of his young age and clear record in particular, I shall further reduce his starting point by 5 months to 7 years and 6 months.

27.After applying the one-third discount for the guilty plea to the starting point of 7 years and 6 months (90 months), the sentence is reduced to 60 months (5 years).

SIXTH STEP – APPRAISAL OF THE OVERALL SENTENCE

28.The final step is to stand back and ensure the overall sentence is fair, just and balanced.

29.Having considered the serious nature of drug trafficking, the not-insignificant quantity of ketamine involved, and balancing it with Defendant’s youth, his limited role, and his demonstrated efforts at reform, I am satisfied that a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances.

ORDER

30.The Defendant is sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment.