HKSAR v. Leung Yu Wing

HCCC 410/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 410 OF 2025

________________

________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

The Charge

1.On 24 November 2025, the defendant faced two charges in the magistracy: the 1^st charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 65.07 grammes of a solid containing 56.11 grammes of cocaine; and the 2^nd charge of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a), (3) and 39 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.  The defendant pleaded guilty to the 2^nd charge and admitted a Summary of Facts dated 17 September 2025 and upon an application by the Prosecution, the court left the 1^st charge on court file.  The defendant was thus committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant through his counsel confirmed his guilty plea to the conspiracy charge and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.The facts of the case can be summarized as follows. 

3.On 28 February 2023, police officers were on patrol along Tai Shek Street in Sai Wan Ho and they saw the defendant turning around and trying to leave.  The police officers thus intercepted and searched the defendant.  They found 366 bags of suspected cocaine from the shoulder bag that the defendant was carrying.  Those items were subsequently found to contain 65.07 grammes of a solid containing 56.11 grammes of cocaine.

4.Upon arrest and caution, the defendant claimed that the dangerous drugs were given to him by a man the night before and he would take the dangerous drugs to his friend’s address for repacking; he would then take the dangerous drugs back to the man in Po Tat Estate who had promised to give him HK$1,000 as a reward.

5.Upon search at the police station, the defendant was found to have cash of HK$10,203 and 3 mobile phones.

6.Upon examining one of the defendant’s mobile phones, the police found Whatsapp messages showing that between 17 and 28 February 2023, he had discussed with another person (“the accomplice”) about drug trafficking activities that he had carried out.  Such messages showed that:

(a) The dangerous drugs involved were either ketamine or cocaine;

(b) The defendant would pick up the dangerous drugs from different locations;

(c) He would then repack the dangerous drugs into smaller packages;

(d) He would then deliver the dangerous drugs to others;

(e) At times, when the recipients of the dangerous drugs were not satisfied with their quality, the defendant would take them back and discuss with the accomplice as to what to do with them;

(f) The total weight of ketamine and cocaine as shown in photographs sent between the defendant and his accomplice was at least 734 grammes, although the respective amounts of ketamine and cocaine were not specified;

(g) Money transactions in the total amount of HK$50,550 were mentioned between the defendant and the accomplice; and

(h) The dangerous drug seized from the defendant’s person was not shown in the messages.

7.In the Summary of Facts, the defendant admitted that between 17 February 2023 and 28 February 2023, he had conspired with another person unknown to traffic in dangerous drugs, namely, cocaine and ketamine.

Background andmitigation

8.The defendant was born in the Mainland in 1997 and he is now aged 29 and single.  He was brought to Hong Kong when he was 3 years old and he received his education here up to Form 6.  He had worked as a driver of a patrol car for the Lion Rock Tunnel from 2019 and until 2022, earning about HK$20,000 a month.  From 2022, he became unemployed.  Before his arrest for the present case, he resided with his parents and his elder brother in a public housing unit. 

9.The defendant has a clear record. 

10.His counsel, Mr. Ng, submitted to the Court that there was no concrete proof to show the precise nature and quantities of dangerous drugs that had previously been trafficked by the defendant together with the accomplice, which were either ketamine or cocaine, although the evidence suggested that the total quantity was at least 734 grammes.  

11.Mr. Ng accepted that based on a statement of the Prosecution’s forensic scientist dated 4 March 2026, the purity of ketamine at the material time was 80%.  Mr. Ng also accepted that the purity of the cocaine found on the defendant was some 86%.  Mr. Ng urged the Court to use these purity percentages to work out the actual quantities of dangerous drugs that had been trafficked by the defendant during the conspiracy period for the purpose of sentencing in the present case. According to Mr. Ng’s calculation, if all of the 734 grammes of dangerous drugs had been ketamine, with an 80% purity, that would come to a quantity of 587.2 grammes of ketamine, and that would warrant a notional starting point of about 11 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.  On the other hand, had all of the 734 grammes of dangerous drugs been cocaine, with an 86% purity, that would come to a quantity of some 631 grammes of cocaine, and that would warrant a notional starting point of about 16 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 

12.Mr. Ng invited the Court to give the defendant the benefit of the doubts and sentence him on the basis of a scenario favourable to him: namely to treat the conspiracy as one to traffic in only ketamine (the less potent drug as compared to cocaine) or in dangerous drugs involving also cocaine but the majority of the dangerous drugs being ketamine.  

13.On the other hand, Mr. Kong for the Prosecution confirmed that the original 1^st charge of trafficking (involving 56.11 grammes of cocaine) was left on court file in the magistracy.  For the purpose of sentencing the present conspiracy charge, Mr. Kong was content for this Court to focus on the other 734 grammes of dangerous drugs which were shown in the photographs sent between the defendant and the accomplice, being ketamine and/or cocaine. 

Sentence

14.For the purpose of sentencing, I will need to make an assessment of the gravity of the conspiracy offence.  Whilst the precise quantities of dangerous drugs that the defendant had conspired with the accomplice to traffic in the conspiracy period are not clearly set out in the Summary of Facts, I am entitled to reach a view of the very least that was trafficked during the conspiracy by recourse to inferences drawn from the evidence or facts admitted in the Summary of Facts: see HKSAR v Chan Kam Loi, CACC 410/2012 (unreported and dated 30 January 2014, at §102). 

15.According to the Summary of Facts in the present case, two types of dangerous drugs were plainly involved in the conspiracy, namely ketamine and cocaine.  The total quantity of dangerous drugs involved was at least 734 grammes (including impurities) although there is no clear evidence to show how much of it was ketamine and how much was cocaine.  I note, however, that on the very day of arrest, the defendant was trafficking in cocaine, and only cocaine (the subject matter of the original 1^st charge).  I therefore take the view that it is untenable for the Defence to suggest that all of the 734 grammes of dangerous drugs in question must have been ketamine only.  On the other hand, as invited by Mr. Ng, I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubts to the defendant so as to find the majority (or 80%) of the 734 grammes to be ketamine (i.e. 587.2 grammes) and the rest (or 20%) to be cocaine (i.e. 146.8 grammes).   With the aforesaid purity percentages applied to such quantities, the Court would sentence the defendant on the basis of a total quantity of 469.76 grammes of ketamine and a total quantity of 126.25 grammes of cocaine, being the least quantities of dangerous drugs having been trafficked in the conspiracy period.   

16.I thus informed Mr. Ng that I was minded to arrive at the notional starting point on this basis. Having taken instructions from the defendant, Mr. Ng informed the Court that the defendant did not require a Newton hearing to be held on this issue and that he accepted the Court’s proposed basis for working out the respective quantities of ketamine and cocaine for the purpose of sentencing the conspiracy charge. 

17.With such quantities of dangerous drugs being admitted by the defendant, I shall proceed to sentence him by applying the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

18.The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantities of the dangerous drugs in question.  When more than one type of dangerous drugs are involved in a trafficking offence, the court will adopt a combined approach in sentencing.  As explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013, there are three means of cross-checking whether a sentence is manifestly inadequate, namely, the absurdity test, the ratio test and the conversion test. 

19.In the present case, the absurdity test as applied to the quantities of ketamine and cocaine will result in an overall starting point of about 16 years and 4 months; whereas the ratio test will lead to a starting point of about 12 years and 10 months.  On the other hand, the conversion test (i.e. converting all the narcotics to cocaine) will yield a starting point of about 13 years.  In the circumstances of this case, I find the conversion test to be the most appropriate one to adopt in sentencing the defendant and I shall therefore use 13 years as the notional starting point in sentencing the conspiracy charge. 

20.The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court.  In short, over the conspiracy period of some 12 days, the defendant had collected, packaged and delivered dangerous drugs on multiple occasions pursuant to the instructions of the accomplice and the defendant was to be rewarded for his involvement.  Mr. Ng invited the Court to regard the defendant as a courier cum storekeeper.

21.The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band the defendant should come.  In my assessment, I find the defendant’s role to be that of an active courier cum storekeeper. 

22.The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  It is an aggravating factor for an accused to traffic in more than one type of dangerous drugs “because in such a situation the trafficker is able to cater to a far wider market than the trafficker in only one kind of drug.” (See HKSAR v Yim Hung Lui Ricky, CACC 266/2011, and HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644). Bearing in mind the active role of the defendant, the conspiracy being one that lasted for some 12 days with multiple transactions and the involvement of an accomplice, and the fact that two types of drugs were trafficked in the conspiracy period, I will enhance the notional starting point of 13 years by 1 year, taking it to 14 years’ imprisonment.  

23.The fifth step is to take into account the mitigating factors, if any.  As accepted by Mr. Ng, given the seriousness of the conspiracy offence, the only real mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is his guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount. That brings the sentence down from 14 years to 9 years’ and 4 months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy charge.

24.Lastly, I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 9 years and 4 months.

Mr. Glen Kong, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the Prosecution

Mr. Ken Ng, instructed by Messrs. Sidney Lee & Co., assigned by DLA, for the Defendant