HKSAR v. Wu Hin Sing

DCCC 118/2025

[2026] HKDC 665

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 118 OF 2025

————————

————————

————————————————

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

————————————————

1.Mr Wu pleaded guilty before me to two charges of Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.Particulars of Charge 1 are that he, on 25 October 2024, outside Room 103, 1^st Floor, VP Apartment, No 149 Lai Chi Kok Road, Mong Kok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 13.0 grammes of a solid containing 8.39 grammes of cocaine.

3.Particulars of Charge 2 are that he, on the same day, at Room 103 aforesaid, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 21.5 grammes of a solid containing 15.2 grammes of cocaine.

Facts admitted by Mr Wu

4.On 25 October 2024, at about 8:30 am, Mr Wu opened the door of Room 103, 1^st Floor, VP Apartment, Mong Kok, from the inside and stepped out. Police officers in ambush came out to stop him.  Mr Wu was brought back into the unit.

5.Upon search, the following items were found on Mr Wu:

(a) One re-sealable transparent plastic bag containing 50 re-sealable plastic bags containing a total of 13.0 grammes of a solid containing 8.39 grammes of cocaine (E1);

(b) One door access card;

(c) 4 keys; and

(d) One mobile phone.

6.Upon search of the unit, the following items were found on a brown wooden table:

(a) One re-sealable transparent plastic bag containing a total of 21.5 grammes of a solid containing 15.2 grammes of cocaine (E2);

(b) One plastic box;

(c) One electronic scale;

(d) One pair of scissors;

(e) One brown container;

(f) One piece of black paper card;

(g) One piece of multi-coloured paper card; and

(h) A large quantity of transparent plastic bags.

7.Mr Wu was arrested.  Under caution, Mr Wu admitted that he packaged E1 and E2 and they were to be sold to others.

8.During the subsequent cautioned VRI, Mr Wu admitted:

(a) E1 and E2 were cocaine and he would package them into smaller bags for sale;

(b) Each small bag of cocaine in E1 would be sold for $250;

(c) The pair of scissors was used to cut cocaine; the piece of black paper card was used to put cocaine into the plastic bags;

(d) The brown container was used to hold cocaine; the electronic scale was used to weigh cocaine; and

(e) The door access card found on him was the access card to the unit.

9.The estimated street value of the cocaine in this case was about $16,866.

Criminal record

10.Mr Wu has two previous convictions one similar (recorded in February 2023).

Antecedents

11.Mr Wu is aged 33 (31 at the time of the offences), educated to Secondary 7 level, unemployed at the time of arrest.  Mr Wu was last discharged from prison in April 2023.  Mr Wu has a son with his stable girlfriend.  He has lost contact with his family except for his father.  Mr Wu lived at the subject premises on a temporary basis.

Mitigation

12.Mr Antonio Tsui of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Wu.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

13.Prior to the arrest, Mr Wu’s more permanent residence was in a public housing estate where he lived with his son, his girlfriend and her parents.

14.Mr Wu’s mother left him when he was very young.  He maintained a close relationship with his 70-year-old father who runs a motorcycle repair shop. From around 2017 to 2021, Mr Wu worked diligently at his father’s shop before his life was unfortunately derailed by drug addiction after associating with the wrong crowd.

15.Mr Tsui reminded the court to adopt the six-step approach set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

16.Under the new guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, for trafficking in 10 to 50 grammes of cocaine, the sentencing band is 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment.

17.It was submitted that a starting point of 72 months’ imprisonment would be arithmetically appropriate for the total weight of 23.59 grammes of cocaine in this case.

18.Defence accepts that the drugs were packaged for sale at $250 per bag. It was submitted that Mr Wu’s role was strictly at the retail street level; that his involvement in trafficking was not driven by a desire to build a lavish lifestyle or pure commercial greed, but fundamentally as a desperate means to fund his own severe addiction.

19.Defence acknowledges Mr Wu’s previous conviction for the same offence in 2023 (DCCC 532/2022).

20.While the defence realistically accepts that an enhancement of the starting point is unavoidable given Mr Wu’s record, Mr Tsui urged the court to exercise leniency.  It was submitted that Mr Wu’s re-offending was not a calculated expansion of a drug enterprise, but a rapid relapse into an untreated, severe addiction; that he trafficked purely as a desperate means to sustain his own consumption.  The court is urged to keep the enhancement to a modest minimum to avoid a crushing sentence on a father who still hopes to rehabilitate for his young son.

21.Apart from the guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity, Mr Tsui prays in aid Mr Wu’s severe addiction and partial self-consumption as a mitigating factor with details as follows.

22.Mr Tsui draws the court’s attention to the unfortunate underlying context of Mr Wu’s offending.  Following his release from a previous term of imprisonment, Mr Wu regrettably suffered a swift relapse into drug abuse.  At the material time, his physiological dependency escalated to debilitating level where he was consuming approximately 2-3 grammes of cocaine daily.  Mr Wu’s assertion of his heavy addiction is not a bare claim but is firmly corroborated by objective medical evidence, namely the urine test taken upon his admission to the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre.  The test yielded a positive result for cocaine.

23.Given his massive daily intake, the 23.59 grammes seized would only last Mr Wu for about 8 days.  A significant proportion of the drug would inevitably have been consumed by himself, effectively diverting it from the illicit market.

24.The legal principles regarding mitigation for self-consumption are well-established by the Court of Appeal:

(i) In HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau [2002] 1 HKLRD 69, the Court of Appeal held that where it is accepted that a significant proportion of the drugs were for the defendant’s own consumption, the court should adjust the sentence to reflect the fact that not all the drugs were for trafficking. It is generally unnecessary for the sentencing judge to specify the exact relative amounts or proportions, except perhaps in the very broadest of terms.

(ii) In HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang [2012] 2 HKLRD 1121, the Court of Appeal established that where all or part of the drugs are intended for the trafficker’s own consumption, the appropriate downward adjustment should, depending on the circumstances, generally fall between 10% and 25% of the basic starting point (at para 19).

25.The defence is aware of the principles in HKSAR v Kong Tat Lung [2018] 5 HKLRD 635 regarding the necessity of a Newton hearing for claims of self-consumption.  Adopting a pragmatic approach to save the court’s valuable time and to demonstrate his unreserved remorse, Mr Wu will not give oral evidence to trigger a contested hearing.  Mr Tsui asserted from the bar table that Mr Wu would consume 2-3 grammes of cocaine daily and that 40-50% of the drug seized was intended for self-consumption.

26.Mr Tsui simply relied on the objective medical reality evidenced by the urine test report and Mr Wu’s undisputed history of heavy drug abuse to invite the court to exercise its discretion to adjust the sentence downwards.  It was submitted that this adjustment would reflect the fact that a significant portion of the drugs was effectively diverted from the illicit market for Mr Wu’s own heavy consumption.

27.As Charge 1 and Charge 2 arose from the exact same continuous police operation on the same morning and represent a single course of conduct, it is requested that the sentences for both charges be ordered to run wholly concurrently.

28.It was submitted that after applying the self-consumption discount, a moderated enhancement for Mr Wu’s record, and the 1/3 guilty plea discount, the resulting sentence will be a fair, just, and balanced one.

Sentence

29.Trafficking in a dangerous drug is always a serious offence.  The fact that Mr Wu committed the same offence again (involving the same type of drug) only 18 months after his release from prison shows he has not been able to turn over a new leaf despite his earlier promise not to re-offend and his earlier hope to start afresh (see his mitigation in DCCC 532/2022 at paras 10 and 12, Chinese Reasons for Sentence).

30.From Mr Wu’s antecedents, it appears that he was jobless at the time of arrest, save and except being a drug trafficker.

31.It is clear that the whole of the drug under Charge 1, namely 8.39 grammes of cocaine contained in 50 re-sealable plastic bags, was intended for sale for the reason that Mr Wu was leaving the premises (a packaging and distribution centre) with it.  According to his admission, that lot would sell for $12,500.

32.By simple arithmetic, the remaining drug at the premises, namely 15.2 grammes of cocaine, could be packaged into 90 re-sealable plastic bags; and they would sell for $22,500.

33.Hence, the two lots together would be able to fetch $35,000.  Comparing this sum with their estimated street value of about $16,866, Mr Wu would be able to obtain a profit of at least $18,000.

34.When confronted by the police, at no time did Mr Wu allege that any part of the drug was for self-consumption.

35.I am aware that in the earlier case of DCCC 532/2022, Mr Wu was given a deduction of one month from the starting point (before the 1/3 discount for pleading guilty) on the exercise of the court’s discretion for the possibility that he might have intended to use a small part of the drug for self-consumption (see para 24 of the Chinese Reasons for Sentence).

36.In this case, the urine test result taken on entry to Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre was positive for cocaine.  However, Mr Wu here declines to give evidence on the proportion of drug that was intended for self-consumption.

37.In the premises, I will likewise give Mr Wu a deduction of one month only from the starting point before applying the 1/3 sentencing discount for his pleas of guilty on the exercise of my discretion.

38.I will adopt the six-step approach for sentencing a drug trafficker as set out in Herry Jane Yusuph (supra).

39.I will adopt a global starting point for the two lots of drug under the two charges but will nonetheless impose an individualized sentence for each before making an appropriate order to arrive at a final global sentence.

40.According to the tariff, the arithmetic starting point for trafficking in 23.59 grammes of cocaine would be 72.231 months’ imprisonment.  I will adopt the round figure of 72 months as the initial starting point.

41.However, because of the fact that Mr Wu was operating a packaging and distribution centre and/or playing the role of an actual trafficker, I will add 3 months to the starting point.

42.For Mr Wu’s recalcitrant behaviour in committing the same offence involving the same type of drug a mere 18 months’ period from earlier release, I add another month to the starting point.

43.On the exercise of discretion, I deduct one month from the starting point for the possibility that Mr Wu might have intended to use a small part of the cocaine seized for his own consumption.

44.Before applying the 1/3 sentencing discount for the pleas of guilty, the final global starting point would be 75 months’ imprisonment.

45.Mr Wu pleaded guilty in good time.  He shall be entitled to the 1/3 sentencing discount.  I can find no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

46.I step back to consider if the resulting sentence would be fair, just and balanced in the overall circumstances of the case.  Having regard to the large number of plastic bags involved, the fact that Mr Wu, a recalcitrant offender, was on his way out to sell drug when caught, and that he was operating a packaging and distribution centre for drug, I am satisfied that the resulting sentence, though by no means light, is a just, fair and balanced one.

47.As said, I will impose individual sentences for the two charges and make an appropriate order to arrive at the global sentence for the case.

(Mr Wu, please stand)

48.On Charge 1, the sentence is 39 months’ imprisonment.

49.On Charge 2, the sentence is 45 months’ imprisonment.

50.I order that 5 months of the sentence on Charge 1 do run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 2, making an aggregate sentence of 50 months’ imprisonment for Mr Wu.