HKSAR v. Cheung on Ki
|
HCCC 364/2025 [2026] HKCFI 2665 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 364 OF 2025 -----------------
-----------------
--------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording
COURT: Defendant, you pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs on 16 October 2025 before a magistrate at Eastern Magistracy. As a result of your plea of guilty, you have been committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence. You have admitted that on 2 March 2023, at Lot No. 1590 SD, DD 83, Sui Wan Road, Fanling, New Territories, in Hong Kong, you unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 48.040 kilogrammes of a solid containing 40.652 kilogrammes of cocaine. The Summary of Facts dated 9 September 2025 and the amended Summary of Facts of today’s date, which is 27 March 2026, has been admitted by you and those are the facts in support of this trafficking charge. As to the facts, on 2 March 2023, police officers mounted an anti-narcotics operation at the location as stated in the charge sheet which was a village house. At about 1.48 pm, as the police officers were about to break into this house, you opened the door. The officers immediately revealed their police identities. Upon seeing the police officers, you stepped back and fell onto the floor. You were subdued. The police officers executed the search warrant against the house in your presence. Upon searching the house, the police officers found a plastic box containing packets of cocaine. They found a chisel, a hammer, an electronic scale, and a bundle of transparent plastic bags. There were numerous wooden planks placed next to the box. One of the planks was broken. Inside the wooden planks, packets of cocaine were found. Seized from the box and the wooden planks was a total of 192 packets of cocaine which contained the drugs as stated in the charge. You were arrested and under caution, you admitted you had been instructed by someone to go to the house to retrieve cocaine from the wooden planks. For each kilogramme of cocaine, you would receive $1,000 as a reward. In a video-recorded interview, you admitted you were recruited by an unknown male to receive the wooden planks and retrieve the cocaine concealed inside. You took that recruitment job because you were looking for quick cash. You rented that house for a monthly rental of $14,000 starting from 1 March 2023. On the day of your arrest, that is when you received the wooden planks as they were delivered by a transportation company to the house. Upon receiving the wooden planks, you used the chisel and hammer to break open the wooden planks to retrieve the cocaine concealed inside. Each wooden plank concealed about four packets of cocaine. During inspection of your mobile phone, some video clips capturing the course of you retrieving cocaine from the wooden planks were found. You admitted filming the process by yourself. The estimated retail value of the drugs seized was $64,277,520 if the drugs were to be crack cocaine, or if in powdered cocaine it was $51,883,200. I turn now to your background and mitigation. Ms Cindy Lee, your counsel, has filed written submissions. She has made heartfelt mitigation on your behalf, urging this court to impose as lenient a sentence as this court can impose. You are now 26 years of age. You were born in Hong Kong and have a clear criminal record. You are single and are educated to Secondary Form 6. Your parents were divorced when you were aged 7. Upon divorce, your father was granted custody of yourself and your mother was granted custody of your elder sister. You lived with your father, stepmother and half-brother. Your half-brother, Cheung Sui-sum, is now serving a sentence of 18 years and 10 months, also for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs in the case of HCCC 371/2024. As can be seen in the reasons for sentence by the court, similar to you, your brother rented and was the tenant of premises which was used to receive dangerous drugs concealed in wooden planks. After he received the wooden planks, he broke them open to take out the drugs. I have taken into account the contents of your letter of mitigation, your mother’s letter, your elder sister’s letter, your godmother’s letter, letters from the headmaster, class teacher, social worker, discipline master of Marycove School when you were a student, the letter from your girlfriend and the medical report from Dr Samuel Tsang. I also note that your grandparents from Vietnam are present in court as well as your mother, elder sister, girlfriend and other friends, and that you have a very strong family support from them. It appears to me that the commission of this offence was as a result of you wanting to earn quick money and as a result of influence by your brother who is now serving the term of imprisonment. As a matter of background, it appears that your relationship with your brother was all along very distant. However, upon seeing that you were depressed, your brother consoled you by luring you to toy with cannabis. You then went from cannabis and indulged yourself in more serious dangerous drugs. As a result of your consuming these dangerous drugs, you borrowed a lot of money from different institutions. Your mother who has been at your side, not since young as a result of your mother being unable to see you and you being scared to see her, as you say, because your father would assault you or her, however came to your aid and sent you to live in Vietnam with your grandparents. Whilst in Vietnam, you successfully rid yourself of your drug dependency. You also went to Vietnam to avoid the persistent demand by debt collectors of loans incurred by you which amounted to approximately $300,000. You, however, returned to Hong Kong at the end of 2020 and you started to take up work at construction sites introduced by your brother. You hoped to earn money to face the reality of the loans. Your income however dropped due to the COVID pandemic. Once again, you fell into a low mood and frustration and your brother again, you say, persuaded you to take cannabis as relief. You eventually succumbed to your brother’s suggestion to engage in trafficking in dangerous drugs. He introduced you to a male drug dealer called ‘Man Gor’. Initially, at the end of 2022, you refused to courier drugs for Man Gor. Had your life stopped there, you would not be before me. However, in early February 2023, Man Gor asked if you were interested in renting premises to receive wooden planks with dangerous drugs inside and you would be paid for retrieving the drugs from the planks. You agreed and rented the house for two years from 1 March 2023. I accept what Ms Lee says that it was only just on the second day of the lease that you were arrested for this offence. It may be that the police were tipped off. Nevertheless, you went into this offence with wide open eyes. You refused to be a courier, that is perhaps delivering these drugs, but you preferred to rent a house and take out the drugs from the concealed planks. I am informed by Ms Lee that it was only after your arrest and detention that you came to know about the details of your brother’s case from your legal representatives and your mother, and only then knew that his case bore a similarity regarding the modus operandi to your case. Defendant, I accept you are deeply remorseful and regretful in committing this offence, more particularly in disappointing your mother and your sister who have been there for you, particularly in your grown-up years. Yet, despite their support and help, you went with open-eyes to commit this offence. Ms Lee has urged upon me to take into account the complex upbringing of you and neglect by your father of his parental responsibilities. I accept that you did not have a good upbringing and your father had neglected his parental responsibilities. You were however then removed from the home and placed into the Marycove School. There you excelled at school, you received very good grades. Even until today, your headmaster, your class teacher, have written good comments about you. You have excelled at music. Yet, despite this excellence, you fell down the wrong path. You blame your father for deterring you from furthering your pursuit and goals. You blame your brother for the influence he had on you. You may blame them, but in the end it was your decision, and yet you still had the support of your mother, your sister, and your grandparents, and you chose that path. The approach to sentencing in drug trafficking cases are the ones laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and complemented in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150. The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of drugs. The revised tariff case for the drugs heroin and cocaine is set out in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKCA 234. Pursuant to the tariff, where an amount trafficked is between 15,000 to 30,000, the Court of Appeal laid down a starting point between 27 to 30 years’ imprisonment. However, above 30,000 grammes, sentences will fall within the discretion of judges. Here, the amount is 40,652 grammes, otherwise 40 kilos and 652 grammes. In a comparable case in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho, the Court of Appeal reduced a sentence from 37 years to 33 years involved for trafficking in 34.232 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’. In this case, defendant, the drugs involved is larger in quantity by 6-odd kilogrammes. Ms Lee has urged this court to impose a lesser sentence than 33 years. I can see no discretion that I can do so in this case. The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence. In considering your role, your role was to retrieve the drugs concealed within the planks and to remove the cocaine. I consider your role to be similar to a courier‑cum‑storekeeper. The third step is to identify where in the relevant band you come in, bearing in mind the factors I have mentioned in step 2. And given the circumstances of the offence and role, I consider, defendant, the appropriate starting point should be one of 33 years’ imprisonment. Defendant, regarding the fourth step, I do not consider there to be any aggravating factors in the present case. Regarding the fifth step, that is the court should consider all mitigating factors. I deeply sympathise with your upbringing by your father and the fact that you were influenced by your brother. I bear that in mind, but in the long run and in the end it was your decision and your decision as an adult, despite having the support of your mother and your sister, to still get involved in this offence. In this particular branch of sentencing in trafficking in dangerous drugs, personal circumstances generally count for little. I accept you suffer from oppositional defiant disorder primarily attributed to the treatment you received when living with your father but I do not consider these mitigating factors to be significant. The most significant mitigating factor is your plea of guilty at the first and earliest opportunity, and for this you will benefit from a one-third discount to your sentence. The starting point being 33 years’ imprisonment, that term shall be reduced to one of 22 years to which you shall serve. As regards the sixth step, I consider the sentence to be fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances of this case and the offence and yourself. |