COURT: Both defendants pleaded guilty on 13 February 2025 to trafficking in dangerous drugs charges and were committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today, both defendants confirmed their pleas and admission of the Summary of Facts.
The 1st defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The particulars of the 1st count are as follows. This defendant on 3 January 2023, near the staircase on 11th Floor, Chak Kwan Building, 232-234 Tai Po Road, Kowloon, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 78 grammes of a mixture containing 51.3 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.
The 1st and 2nd defendants pleaded guilty to the 2nd count. The particulars are that both defendants on that same day, 3 January 2023, at Flat E, 11th Floor, Chak Kwan Building, 232-234 Tai Po Road, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug namely 855.42 grammes of a mixture containing 414.95 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.
The facts are straightforward. The police were conducting an anti-narcotics operation and were lying in ambush near the staircase on the 11th floor of that address. The 1st defendant walked out from Flat E of the 2nd count, and was intercepted by police officers. He was searched and the drugs of the 1st count were found on him. He was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs, and under caution said, he was delivering the white powder to somebody on Yee Kuk Street.
The police entered Flat E and found the 2nd defendant inside the bedroom. During search of the premises, the police found the heroin of Count 2 as well as paraphernalia associated with weighing and packaging dangerous drugs and a significant amount of cash. They also found a tenancy for the premises in the 2nd defendant’s name. Both defendants were arrested and under caution the 1st defendant said the heroin in the premises were for delivering later. He also further admitted that he would receive money when he made deliveries.
Both defendants admit that they possessed all the dangerous drugs found inside the flat for the purposes of unlawful trafficking. The 1st defendant admitted possessing all the dangerous drugs found on his body for a similar purpose.
Mitigation
The 1st defendant is now 49 years old and was unemployed at the time of the offence, single, and living in Flat E with the 2nd defendant. He is not a man with a clear record. He has 25 previous convictions from 21 court appearances. He has many drug-related offences and has been sentenced to drug addiction treatment centre orders on two previous occasions.
Prior to his arrest, he had been working as a technician in the construction industry but failed to find any work during the COVID pandemic. He got into financial difficulty. He was offered easy and quick money to deliver heroin. For every delivery he made he was paid $1,000. Having received a letter in mitigation from the 1st defendant, he promises to cut out dangerous drugs and look after his father.
The 2nd defendant is now 46 years old, was also unemployed at the time of the offence, single, and living in Flat E with the 1st defendant. She has 16 previous convictions from 10 court appearances with several drug-related offences. She had been sentenced to drug addiction treatment centre orders on three separate occasions.
I have received several letters from the 2nd defendant, including a letter from herself, her mother, and elder sister. I have taken into account their contents. I have also seen an up-to-date psychiatric report. She has been known to the mental health services since she was 19 years old, about the time that she became addicted to heroin. She has in the past suffered from behavioural disorder due to polysubstance use and drug dependency. I have read the contents of that medical report.
The best mitigation for both defendants is their pleas of guilty at the earliest opportunity. Counsel for both defendants have said all they could possibly say in mitigation.
Sentencing
I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the most recent authority, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.
In the approach to sentencing, a number of steps have been identified which the court should take, such as assessing the gravity of the offence and applicable guideline, identifying the defendant’s role, where within the guideline the defendant should lie, any aggravating factors, any mitigating factors, and lastly passing a sentence which is fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances of the offences and the defendants.
The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guideline according to the drug seized. The 1st defendant faces two counts of trafficking the same drug and on the same day. Under the circumstances, I intend to take a global approach and add up the quantity of dangerous drugs for both counts. There is a total, therefore, of 466.25 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.
The sentencing guidelines for heroin is now found in the most recent authority of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234. The starting point for trafficking in heroin between 200 and 500 grammes is 12 to 16 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically speaking, the 1st defendant trafficking in 466.25 grammes of heroin hydrochloride will attract a starting point of 15 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The 2nd defendant trafficking in 414.95 grammes of heroin hydrochloride will attract a starting point, mathematically, of 14 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
I accept the submissions that the evidence points to the defendants being storekeepers and the 1st defendant going further and acting as a courier. There is no evidence to suggest they are any higher up in the hierarchy of drug traffickers. Therefore, according to the authorities I will find the mathematical starting points appropriate in this case for both defendants.
The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors. I see no such factors in this case.
Both defendants pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and are entitled to a full one-third discount.
For the 1st defendant, I will take a global approach as I have said for both charges and a starting point of 15 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Reducing it by one-third, I will sentence the 1st defendant to 10 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
For the 2nd defendant, I will take a starting point of 14 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, reduce it by one-third, and sentence her to 9 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.
With the last step of the six steps in mind, I consider these sentences I impose to be fair, just, and balanced in light of the circumstances of the offences as well as both defendants.
Accordingly for Count 1, the 1st defendant is sentenced to 10 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. Similarly for Count 2, the 1st defendant is sentenced to 10 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. I will order both sentences to be served concurrently, the 1st defendant is sentenced to a total of 10 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
For Count 2, the 2nd defendant is sentenced to a total of 9 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.
