HKSAR v. Yu Chun Pong
Read the full judgment text of HCCC 213/2025 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 23 March 2026.
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 26 June 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed his pleas and his agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel.
Cites 4 cases
|
HCCC 213/2025 [2026] HKCFI 2242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 213 OF 2025 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 26 June 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed his pleas and his agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel. 2.The particulars of the charges state as follows. Regarding Charge 1, on 3 January 2024, outside House No. 65, Wai Tau Tsuen, Tai Po, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 33.28 grammes of a solid containing 28.62 grammes of cocaine. 3.Regarding Charge 2, on 3 January 2024, at 1st Floor, House No. 65, Wai Tau Tsuen, Tai Po, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 268.53 grammes of a solid containing 224.75 grammes of cocaine. 4.The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows. In the evening of 3 January 2024, the police conducted an anti-narcotics operation at Wai Tau Tsuen, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong. Shortly before 6.54 pm, a police officer saw the defendant leaving a village house, namely House No. 65, Wai Tau Tsuen, alone. The defendant was intercepted for enquiry and search. 5.Upon search, three pieces of tissue papers wrapping three plastic bags were found in the right rear pocket of the defendant’s pants. Inside the three plastic bags were 101 stapled plastic bags containing a total of 33.28 grammes of solid containing 28.62 grammes of cocaine. The defendant was then arrested and cautioned for trafficking in a dangerous drug. 6.Under arrest and caution, the defendant admitted that he delivered the cocaine for a monetary reward of HK$1,000. At the time of arrest, the defendant had cash of HK$7,190 and two mobile phones on his person. 7.Thereafter, the defendant was brought back to his home situated at the 1st Floor of House No. 65, Wai Tau Tsuen (“the Premises”) for a search on the strength of a search warrant. 8.Upon house search, the following items were found inside the kitchen cabinet underneath the sink in the Premises:
9.In other words, a total of 268.53 grammes of a solid containing 224.75 grammes of cocaine were found and seized from the Premises. 10.The defendant was further cautioned for trafficking in a dangerous drug in respect of all the drug found in the Premises. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he delivered the cocaine for a monetary reward of HK$1,000. 11.The estimated street value of all the dangerous drug seized was about HK$403,822. 12.The defendant admits and accepts that at the material time he unlawfully trafficked in all the dangerous drug seized. 13.The personal background of the defendant is as follows. The defendant, single, now aged 27, was born in mainland China. He is the only child of his parents and they came to live in Hong Kong in around 2003. He completed education up to Secondary Form 6. Thereafter, he worked as a casual transportation worker with unstable income. As his parents had divorced, he was living with his father at a public estate in Sha Tin before his arrest. He is not a drug addict. 14.The defendant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to a detention centre when he was 14 years old in 2013. Life was uneventful when the defendant stayed away from his undesirable peers and finished his secondary school studies. Unfortunately, he came to know some bad elements again at his place of work. He was charged with trafficking in a dangerous drug in 2020 and was convicted and sentenced to 26 years and 8 months’ imprisonment after trial in November 2024 (HCCC 128/2023). 15.At the material time, he committed the present offences whilst he was on bail for HCCC 128/2023. I am told it was because he was so foolish that he wanted to earn quick money in order to pay the legal fees for his private legal team to conduct his trial. 16.The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186. The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band (or bracket) applicable to the quantity of drug concerned. The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on evidence before the court. The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes. It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant. The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”. The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”. The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced sentence”. 17.Regarding the first step, the task is to identify the appropriate range applicable to the total quantity of drugs involved. As the dangerous drugs the subject matter of the two charges were found on the same occasion, I consider it appropriate to treat all the dangerous drug seized as one lot of drug and to ascertain an appropriate global starting point for the same. 18.The total quantity of drug seized in respect of Charge 1 and Charge 2 is 253.37 grammes of cocaine. For 200 to 500 grammes of cocaine, the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 12 to 16 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, at paragraph 62. 19.Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a courier or storekeeper of the drug. 20.Third, for a total quantity of 253.37 grammes of cocaine, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a “notional sentence after trial” of 12 years and 8.5 months’ imprisonment. In view of my aforesaid finding of the defendant’s role and culpability, I consider that 12 years and 8.5 months would be the appropriate global “notional sentence after trial” for the offences in question. 21.Fourth, I consider that there is one aggravating feature which would enhance the “notional sentence after trial”. The fact that the defendant committed the present offences whilst on bail in HCCC 128/2023 is an aggravating factor. Taking into account all the relevant circumstances, I would enhance the “notional sentence after trial” by 6 months, taking it to 13 years and 2.5 months’ imprisonment. 22.Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is his timely guilty plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount. Accordingly, the global sentence to be imposed on the defendant on Charge 1 and Charge 2 is 8 years and 9 months’ imprisonment 23.To achieve that global sentence, I would sentence the defendant as follows:
24.As the final step, I have to stand back and consider the total sentence which the defendant has to serve in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just, and balanced sentence”. Having regard to the fact that the offence in HCCC 128/2023 and the offences in the present case were entirely separate offences, but at the same time taking firmly into account the totality principle, and being as merciful as I can, I order that 3 years and 4 months of the sentence imposed in the present case are to run consecutively (and the rest to run concurrently) to the 26 years and 8 months sentence imposed in HCCC 128/2023. 25.In other words, the total sentence which the defendant has to serve for the two cases is therefore 30 years’ imprisonment.
Ms Clara Ma, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR Ms Chan Man-wai Vivien, instructed by Yung, Yu, Yuen & Co, assigned by DLA, for the accused |
Cases cited in this judgment