The defendant, Chuang Siu-hung, pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs and admitted the facts pertaining to the charge in the court below. He confirmed his plea and admission of the Summary of Facts dated 18 June 2025.
The defendant committed the offence on 9 July 2024 inside a hotel room in To Kwa Wan. The charge concerned:
(1) 1,012.22 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1,012.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a salt of methamphetamine commonly known as ‘Ice’;
(2) 47.2 grammes of a solid containing 42.2 grammes of cocaine; and
(3) 24.72 grammes of a mixture containing 20.08 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, a salt of heroin.
I convicted the defendant on his own plea and admission.
The facts
At 8.51 pm on 9 July 2024, police officers in plainclothes borrowed a master key card from the staff of Harbour Plaza 8 Degrees, 199 Kowloon City Road, To Kwa Wan, Kowloon (“the Hotel”). At about 10.34 pm, police officers knocked the door of Room 525, pressed the doorbell and revealed their police identity. A male in Room 525 asked who, but did not open the door. Police officers opened the door of Room 525 by using the master key card, but found the security chain was fastened on the door. Having cut the security chain, police officers entered Room 525 and found the defendant was the only person in the room. Having revealed their police identity and explained a search warrant to the defendant, a search was conducted in Room 525 in the defendant’s presence.
The following items were found in Room 525 upon search:
In the middle drawer of the desk:
(a) 16 plastic bags containing a total of 1,001 grammes of a crystalline solid containing a total of 1,001 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a salt of methamphetamine;
(b) two empty plastic bags;
(c) two plastic bags containing a total of 47.2 grammes of a solid containing 42.2 grammes of cocaine;
(d) one plastic bag containing 24.5 grammes of a mixture containing 19.9 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, a salt of heroin;
In the right drawer of the desk;
(e) one plastic bag containing 11.2 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 11.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a salt of methamphetamine;
(f) a plastic cup containing 0.02 grammes of a crystalline solid containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a salt of methamphetamine;
(g) a blender containing 0.22 grammes of a mixture containing 0.18 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, a salt of heroin;
(h) two electronic scales, one hammer, three packs of empty transparent resealable plastic bags, one pack of opened tin foil, two lighters, two pairs of scissors, two spoons, two mobile phones each containing one SIM card, a wallet containing $6,000 cash, and four access cards.
The total dangerous drugs seized were as follows:
(a) 1,012.22 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1,012.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a salt of methamphetamine;
(b) 47.2 grammes of a solid containing 42.2 grammes of cocaine; and
(c) 24.72 grammes of a mixture solid containing 20.08 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, a salt of heroin.
The defendant was arrested and stated under caution that as he was heavily in debt, he packed dangerous drugs into packages for selling so as to earn some money. In the subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant remained silent under caution.
Records of the Hotel confirmed that the defendant rented Room 525 from 3 June to 15 July, 2024. Four access cards were found in Room 525. Records of the Hotel showed that:
(a) two access cards were reported missing by the defendant on 8 July and were invalidated;
(b) two replacement access cards were issued to the defendant on 8 July 2024;
(c) three entries were made to Room 525 on 9 July 2024 by using the two replacement access cards, namely at 12.37 am, 11.34 am, and 8.14 pm; and
(d) the last entry to Room 525 was made at 10.34 pm on 9 July 2024 by using the master key card.
A cleaning staff of the Hotel confirmed that she had cleaned Room 525 from 3.10 pm to 4.40 pm on 8 July 2024 upon the defendant’s request. No one was in Room 525 at the material time. Only bed sheets, pillow cases and the towels were changed. She had neither touched nor cleaned other places in Room 525. She did not pay attention to the articles kept in Room 525. Room 525 was not cleaned on 9 July 2024.
The defendant’s DNA was found on five plastic bags containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, cocaine and heroin hydrochloride and on the two electronic scales, fingerprint examination report showed that the defendant’s right palm print was found on the surface of a mirror in Room 525 and his left forefinger print was found on the glass panel bottom of one of the two electronic scales.
The prevailing estimated street value of the dangerous drugs was as follows: (a) methamphetamine hydrochloride, $508,134; (b) cocaine, $35,447 in powder form or $49,466 for crack cocaine; and (c) heroin, $14,610.
The defendant admits that he unlawfully possessed the dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of trafficking.
The antecedent record of the defendant
The defendant is aged 59, is single. He was born in Hong Kong and he received education up to secondary school level. The defendant has been unemployed since 2021. He previously worked as a waiter. He resided with his brother at a public housing unit in Tai Po before his remand. The defendant has been suffering from diabetes for two years. He has been a methamphetamine user for more than 20 years.
The defendant has seven conviction records, including two records for possession of dangerous drugs and three records for trafficking in dangerous drugs, one in 2005 for which he was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment, two in 2011 for which he was sentenced to a total term of 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
Mitigation
I am grateful to Ms Lai for her detailed written mitigation submissions.
Consideration
I have considered the following authorities placed before me by counsel:
(1) Hong Kong Archbold 2005 at page 659;
(2) HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138
(3) HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013;
(4) HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75;
(5) HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin and Another [2004] 3 HKC 367;
(6) HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817;
(7) HKSAR v Har Tsz Yui [2020] 1 HKLRD 307;
(8) HKSAR v So Yat Ting [2021] 1 HKLRD 1215;
(9) HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290;
(10) HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186;
(11) HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644;
(12) HKSAR v Islam S M Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146;
(13) HKSAR v Chan Yat Wah, CACC 154/2023, 3 HKLRD 824;
(14) HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830;
(15) HKSAR v Lai Wai Keung, unreported CACC 178/2011.
This case involves:
(1) 1,012.2 grammes of ‘Ice’;
(2) 42.2 grammes of cocaine; and
(3) 20.08 grammes of heroin.
In sentencing the defendant, I adopt the combined approach. Application of the combined approach with the aid of the absurdity test, conversion test and ratio test, and the identification of the relevant guideline bands, that is step one of Herry Jane Yusuph.
Of the three kinds of dangerous drugs, ‘Ice’ is the most serious drug in terms of potency. In my judgment, the presence of 42.2 grammes of cocaine and 20.8 grammes of heroin is significant which has a bearing on the sentence.
Applying the guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3), the 1,012.2 grammes of ‘Ice’ bring the defendant’s sentence within the band of sentence of 18 to 20 years. Mathematically, the tariff sentence for the quantity of ‘Ice’ in the present case is 18 years and 10.9 months, 18.9160 years.
Applying the guidelines, the 62.28 grammes of cocaine and heroin bring the defendant’s sentence within the band of sentence of 8 to 12 years. Mathematically, the tariff sentence for the quantity of cocaine and heroin in the present case is 8 years and 3.9 months, 8.3274 years.
Applying the absurdity test, the conversion test, and the ratio test to the dangerous drugs in this case, the quantities of the cocktail of drugs in this case call for a sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment, that brings the defendant within the band of sentence of 18 to 20 years’ imprisonment.
Step two of Herry Jane Yusuph
The defendant rented a hotel room and used it as a packaging centre for dangerous drugs for reselling. From the seizure of the tools and the period of time the room had been used by the defendant, I am satisfied that the defendant, though he falls into the category of a storekeeper, hence in the lowest rank in the hierarchy, he was heavily involved in the packaging and dissemination of drugs.
Step three of Herry Jane Yusuph
Given the role and culpability of the defendant, the defendant is close to the upper end of the band of 18 to 20 years, that is 19½ years.
Step four of Herry Jane Yusuph
In my judgment, there are two aggravating factors in this case. Firstly, the defendant trafficked in three types of dangerous drugs, which could cater for a wider market. It was held in HKSAR v Chan Yat Wah and HKSAR v Islam S M Majharul that trafficking in two or more dangerous drugs is an aggravating factor.
Secondly, the defendant is a repeated offender. He has three previous convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs, albeit his last conviction was in March 2011 for which he was sentenced to 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
Bearing in mind the aforesaid aggravating factors and bearing in mind the principle of totality, an enhancement of 6 months is appropriate.
In my judgment, a notional sentence after trial of 20 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
Step five of Herry Jane Yusuph
The defendant should be given one-third reduction for his timely guilty plea. That brings his sentence down to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, 160 months. Apart from his guilty plea, there is no other valid mitigating factor.
Step six of Herry Jane Yusuph
I am satisfied that 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, that is 160 months, is a fair, just, and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.
For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, 160 months.