HKSAR v. Keung Chi Ho, Johnny
|
HCCC 285/2025 [2026] HKCFI 3074 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 285 OF 2025 -----------------
-----------------
--------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording
COURT: Defendant, you pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs on 28 August 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 in the charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs that between 18 May 2023 and 25 May 2023, both dates inclusive, at Room 103, 1st Floor, Kornhill Block H, No. 3 Hong Shing Street, Tai Koo, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in 2,938.9 grammes of a solid containing 2,596 grammes of cocaine. The Summary of Facts dated 26 March 2025 has been admitted by you as correct and are facts in support of the charge. The facts are as follows. On 19 May 2023, Customs Officers conducted an operation at the residential estate called the Kornhill at No. 3 Hong Shing Street, Tai Koo. On that date, they saw you, defendant, picking up a yellow recycle bag at the recreational area of the estate and bring the bag to Block H and then soon left empty-handed. Feeling suspicious, officers reviewed the CCTV of Block H and noticed that you, the defendant, had attended Block H intermittently between 12 to 19 May 2023, staying only for a short while each time, ranging from a few minutes to some half an hour at most. Each time, you, the defendant, would first approach the mailbox for Room 103. This Room 103 was a flat located on the 1st Floor of the building. I shall refer to this as “the Flat” from now on. The defendant for most of the time had carried yellow plastic bags to the Flat that resembled those later seized inside the Flat and had most of the time left the building carrying a bag or a backpack. On 23 May 2023, upon execution of a search warrant, Customs Officers searched the Flat’s mailbox and retrieved the keys from inside of it. Officers then entered the Flat by the use of the keys. The Flat was barely furnished, and upon search, they found a suitcase in the Flat’s wardrobe. The suitcase contained the drugs in the quantity as particularised in the charge. There were three blocks of cocaine and one plastic bag of cocaine. The officers then returned the keys to the mailbox and kept it under observation. They also laid ambush inside the Flat. Two days later, on 25 May 2023, at about 5.30 pm, you, the defendant went back to the building, picked up the key from the mailbox and entered the Flat with the use of the key. Defendant was immediately arrested and under caution, he admitted that inside the wardrobe was a suitcase that contained dangerous drugs. Defendant you volunteered the passwords of your three mobile phones. In the gold iPhone, on 18 May 2023, at about 7 pm, at a time coinciding with the defendant’s visit at the building as shown in the CCTV, the defendant sent photos of a block of cocaine that looked identical to the one later seized in the Flat. In the black iPhone, defendant sent messages with a contact named “Ming Jai”, alluding to drug delivery and collection. The defendant’s thumbprint was found on a mirror inside the Flat. The estimated street value of the cocaine at the month of the offence was $3,247,484 which is approximately $1,105 per gramme. I now turn to the background and mitigation. Ms Maria So, counsel for the defendant, has submitted written mitigation on his behalf. Defendant, you were born in Hong Kong and are now 23 years of age. At the time of commission of the offence, you were 20 years of age, and you are single and have been educated up to Form 2. At the time of commission of the offence, defendant, you worked part-time as an event planner at the HKSKH Lady MacLehose Centre, earning approximately $8,000 per month. You contributed half your earnings to your mother to help her with the family expenses. Prior to commission of this offence, you lived with your mother and your half-sister, who is 7 years old. Your parents were divorced when you were very young. I am informed by Ms So that your mother, sister, father and cousin are in court today. I am informed that your mother suffers from long-term mental illness and pain issues. You have submitted various medical reports and medical notes in support of these issues regarding your mother. I am informed that your mother did not receive any financial or other support from your father. Although your mother remarried and had your younger half‑sister, unfortunately during the period of COVID-19, your mother and stepfather’s relationship started to turn sour and by early 2023, your stepfather also left the family and ceased all contact and support. Your mother therefore had to support the family on her own. At the material time of this offence, you were only 20 years old and only had a part-time job with unstable income. And given the financial situation of your family, you say you unwisely and foolishly listened to your friends to earn quick money by committing this offence. You have written a letter of mitigation to this court, stating that to be the case and also now understand that what you have done is completely wrong. Instead of helping your mother now, you have caused more trouble to your mother and in fact, are a burden you say to your mother and recently your maternal grandmother. You have said you have learned your lesson, you have learned from your mistake and will turn a new leaf upon your release. Ms So has submitted a number of certificates from Hong Kong Metropolitan University to which you have been attending to improve yourself. In your mother’s letter to the court, she says much the same thing as you, that you committed this offence because you wanted to help her and relieve her from her financial burden. She says that you had listened to your bad peers after telling them that you needed money to help her. She asks this court to impose a lenient sentence so that you can return home soon and that she will be a loving and caring mother to you. Ms Maria So, your counsel submits that you fully understand that you have made a very poor judgment purely for financial reasons without thinking of the consequences. You have, however, cooperated with the authorities since your arrest and pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity. In the instant case, defendant, Ms So submits that you were only following instructions of others and was therefore a courier for the drugs. You have realised that your term of imprisonment will be significant and have therefore taken up courses to improve yourself and enrol in the Metropolitan University to complete your degree. You have one previous conviction in 2022 relating to behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place to which you were sentenced to probation. This is obviously unrelated to dangerous drugs. I turn now to sentence. 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 application of the principles and six-step approach are as follows. The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. The revised tariff case for the drugs heroin, cocaine and ‘Ice’ is set out in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKCA 234. Pursuant to the tariff, when an amount trafficked is 2,596 grammes, that falls within the bracket of between 1,500 grammes and 5,000 grammes attracting a starting point of between 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment. Here, the amount is 2,596 grammes of cocaine and by itself would attract a starting point of 21 years’ imprisonment. The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence. In this case, you, the defendant, were a courier and storekeeper of the drugs. The third step is to identify where in the relevant band you, the defendant, come. Bearing in mind the circumstances of the offence and role of the defendant. Taking into account the third step and the role of the defendant, I consider the appropriate starting point to remain at 21 years’ imprisonment. In respect to the fourth and fifth step, I do not consider there to be any aggravating or personal mitigating factors to reduce the sentence. The most significant mitigating factor is your plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, and for that you will benefit from a one-third discount to the sentence. The starting point being 21 years, it shall be reduced to 14 years’ imprisonment to which you, the defendant, shall serve. The sixth step is to observe the overall sentence passed to ensure that it is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and this I do. |
Cases cited in this judgment