HKSAR v. Ho Sau Chun and Others

HCCC 362/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 362 OF 2025

-----------------

------------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, you pleaded guilty on 16 October 2025 before a magistrate at the Eastern Magistracy. D1, you pleaded guilty to two charges, that is, a charge of dangerous driving in Charge 1 and trafficking in dangerous drugs in Charge 2. For the 2nd and 3rd defendants, you also pleaded guilty to the trafficking‑in-dangerous-drug charge in Charge 2. As a result of your pleas of guilty, you have been committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

In Charge 1, D1, you admitted that on 7 November 2022, at Kowloon, in Hong Kong, you drove a motor vehicle, namely, a private car displaying registration mark XD1125 on a road dangerously. The dangerous driving was contrary to section 37(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Chapter 134.

In respect of the 2nd charge, D1, D2, D3, the trafficking in dangerous drugs, you admitted that on 7 November 2022, at Kowloon, in Hong Kong, you unlawfully trafficked in 243.94 grammes of a solid containing 195.22 grammes of ketamine, 117 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 115 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and 2.38 grammes of a solid containing 2.12 grammes of cocaine.

I turn now to the facts. The Summary of Facts and the Amended Summary of Facts dated 18 March 2025 and 8 April 2026 respectfully were admitted by you, the defendants, as correct.

The facts in support of the charge are as follows. At 5.45 am on 7 November 2022, police officers were in uniform on mobile patrol in Tsim Sha Tsui area on board a police marked vehicle. They saw the headlights of the private car with registration mark XD1125 that D1 was driving were not turned on. The police officers instructed him to pull over. However, he did not do so, did not slow down, but instead drove away from them at high speed. The police vehicle switched on its siren and tailed D1’s car through the streets of Hong Kong. The estimated speed of D1’s car was about 120 kilometres an hour towards Princess Margaret Road.

During the chase, D1 drove his vehicle, across double white lines and jumped seven red traffic lights. They were, one, at Waterloo Road and Prince Edward Road West whilst driving at about 100 kilometres an hour; at the junction of Prince Edward Road West and Kadoorie Avenue, two; three, at Prince Edward Road West near Embankment Road; four, at the junction of Lai Chi Kok Road and Maple Street; five, at the junction of Cheung Sha Wan Road and Nam Cheong Street whilst driving at about 100 kilometres an hour; six, near the junction of Cheung Sha Wan Road and Yen Chow Street; and seven, near the junction of Cheung Sha Wan Road and Hing Wah Street.

During the chase, D1 also drove along Wong Chuk Street in the wrong direction and failed to comply with stop and give way while turning into Lai Chi Kok Road. About four minutes later from when the chase began, at 5.49 am, D1 lost control of his car at the junction of Lai Chi Kok Road and Cheung Sha Wan Road and crashed into the railing, causing about 2 metres of damage to the road railings. The car then ground to a halt.

The cost of repairing the damaged railing was $9,009.10.

The distance D1 travelled whilst being tailed by the police was about 7.2 kilometres. The route D1 travelled had a speed of 50 kilometres an hour save for Princess Margaret Road which had a speed limit of 70 kilometres an hour. At the material time, the road surface was slippery and the traffic was light.

When the police officers approached D1’s car, there were four passengers on board: D1 (the driver), D2 sitting at the front passenger’s seat, D3 at the left passenger’s seat and a female sitting at the right passenger’s seat.

Whilst the police were chasing D1’s car, a police officer saw someone sitting on the left passenger’s seat of the car throw a paper bag onto Princess Margaret Road (North Bound) near lamppost No. AA8922AA. The police officers in the marked vehicle called for support, and some other traffic officers attended the scene and found one brown paper bag containing the drugs as particularised in Charge 2. The drugs were found packed within 235 plastic bags of ketamine, eight plastic bags of cocaine and nine bags of ‘Ice’, that is, methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants were arrested and cautioned for trafficking in dangerous drugs. D1 was also arrested for dangerous driving, alcohol and dangerous drugs tests performed on D1 with nil results. D1, D2, D3 and the car were searched, and nothing suspicious was found. At the time of arrest, D1 had cash of $35,960 on his person. D2 had cash of $1,900 and D3 had cash of $15,000 and €50.

The estimated street value of the drugs was about $216,677 with a breakdown as follows: ketamine value: $146,608; methamphetamine hydrochloride: $66,573; cocaine: $3,496.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview in the presence of his legal representative, D2 stated under caution that he threw the brown paper bag from the car window, that D1 and D3 were his friends, and D1 did not stop when he saw the police car but accelerated and drove away because D2 was carrying drugs.

All the packets of dangerous drugs seized were sent for DNA examination. Upon examination, D1’s DNA was found from 15 plastic bags containing ketamine. D2’s DNA was found on 31 bags containing ketamine, and D3’s DNA was found on nine plastic bags containing ketamine.

D1 was the registered owner of the car XD1125 at the material time.

I turn now to the background and mitigation put forward by the defendants’ counsel.

D1’s Mitigation

D1 is now 31 years old. He was 28 at the time of the offence. He worked part-time as a bartender before his arrest and lived with his parents in Kwun Tong. Mr Newman Wong, counsel for D1, submitted that the statutory maximum sentence for dangerous driving is 3 years’ imprisonment. There is no guideline, but it is accepted that the offence was committed in an attempt to evade police detection. The court is entitled to take a stiffer view.

Mr Wong said that dangerous as D1’s dangerous driving was, it was not of the worst kind. It is submitted that no one was injured, and no real property damage during the course of his dangerous driving save for the railings. With this in mind, he suggests a starting point of around 18 months’ imprisonment.

Defendant 1 has four convictions, two of which were for drug trafficking. Those were in November 2014, for which he was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment, and in April 22, to which he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment respectively. Mr Wong has quite properly conceded that this is an aggravating factor. Mr Wong has informed the court that to show the 1st defendant’s genuine remorse for his dangerous driving, he is agreeable to compensate the government for the damage caused to the railing.

I turn now to D2’s mitigation. D2 is now 21 years of age and was 17 at the time of the offence, and he is single. He has received education up to Form 2 level. He worked as a warehouse keeper at the time of his arrest. Mr Ho submitted that D2 admitted the dangerous drugs contained in the brown paper bag would be delivered to someone in Sau Mau Ping on that evening. He was not the mastermind nor organiser. That said, his role was merely a courier in that he would deliver the drugs to someone, and he had not yet received the payment of reward.

D2 has no previous record of trafficking although he has a drug-related record. D2 was co-operative with the police and made full admissions upon his arrest. He was the passenger upon the car which D1 was driving, and he was very scared when the police gave chase. He was not able to stop D1’s driving manner.

D2 has submitted nine letters in support of his mitigation: from his parents, his sibling, family friends, former employer and himself. From these letters, I can see that D2 has a very supportive and caring family and friends and employer. The family are, in fact, present in court today. In essence, D2’s parents blame themselves for not being able to care for him as much as they should have as they were busily engaged in their work. They say that D2 was influenced by bad peers, and in view of his youth, he did not have a mature mind and committed this serious offence. It is said that D2 is not a bad boy, and they ask the court for leniency.

D2 has himself written a letter which shows he has made great self-reflection and now understands the importance of abiding with the law.

D2 has five previous convictions. Two related to drugs, for possession of dangerous drugs and possession of equipment fit and intended for taking dangerous drugs in 2021, to which he was sentenced to probation. I am informed that he was discharged from DATC in January 2022, but that was not for an offence related to drugs. Nevertheless, 10 months after being released from DATC, he committed this serious offence.

I turn now to D3’s mitigation. D3 is aged 36, single, and his father passed away in year 2002. His mother is now 72 and a housewife. Before she retired, she was a cleaning worker. At the time of this offence, D3 was living with his mother in a public housing unit.

Ms Cindy Lee, counsel for the defendant, submitted in her written submissions that D3 was an underachiever academically. In his youth, he did not receive proper guidance and advice. Therefore, he was only 15 years old when he committed his first offence and was ordered to stay at a boys’ home, leading to him discontinuing his studies and therefore only being educated to Secondary Form 1. At the time of his arrest, he was a construction worker, earning a monthly income of about $30,000, contributing $10,000 to his mother.

He has no similar conviction related to trafficking in dangerous drugs. Ms Lee says since his last conviction, he has stayed away from drugs and this is shown by the Lai Chi Kok urine test. His last conviction being in 2019 for criminal damage where he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment, for that offence, Ms Lee says that it was because he threw a tantrum at his mother and out of anger damaged a piece of glass, and his mother reported him to the police.

Defendant has eight previous convictions. Five related to dangerous drugs, that is, four for possession of dangerous drugs and one for possession of equipment fit for inhaling dangerous drugs. His last discharge from prison was in 2019.

I turn now to sentence. The approach to sentencing in dangerous trafficking cases are the ones laid out 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 steps 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 drugs concerned are 195.22 grammes of ketamine, 115 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise commonly known as ‘Ice’, and 2.12 grammes of cocaine.

The revised tariff case for the drugs heroin, cocaine and ‘Ice’ is set out in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234. The tariff case for the drug ‘Ecstasy’ and ketamine is set out in the authority of the Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1.

Pursuant to the tariff, an amount of ‘Ice’ trafficked of 115 grammes falls within the bracket of between 70 and 300 grammes, attracting a starting point of between 11 to 15 years. Here, the amount of 115 grammes by itself would attract a starting point of 11 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. For the amount of 2.12 grammes of cocaine trafficked, that would fall within the bracket of up to 10 grammes and fall within the bracket of 2 to 5 years. For 2.12 grammes, that would by itself attracts a starting point of 2 years 6 months. For the amount of 195.22 grammes of ketamine, that would fall within the bracket of 50 to 300 grammes, attracting a starting point of between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment. For 195.22 grammes trafficked, the ketamine, that would by itself attracts a starting point of 7 years 9 months’ imprisonment.

In determining the appropriate starting point for the three types of drugs trafficked, I adopt the combined and conversion approach. The most potent and serious drug is the drug ‘Ice’ even though the quantity of ketamine is larger in this case. I shall therefore convert the ketamine and cocaine to the drug ‘Ice’. The total amount of ketamine being 195.22 grammes, with the starting point of 7 years 9 months, if converted to ‘Ice’, that would be equivalent to approximately 21 grammes of ‘Ice’.

The cocaine is of such a small amount that it is insufficient to be converted into ‘Ice’. Therefore, the total amount of ‘Ice’ is 115 grammes plus 21 grammes, which is 136 grammes of ‘Ice’.

The total quantity of ‘Ice’ trafficked of 136 grammes falls within the above same bracket of 70 to 300 grammes, attracting a starting point of between 11 years to 15 years’ imprisonment. The total of 136 grammes of ‘Ice’ itself would attract a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment.

The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence. In the present case, on the facts as they can be seen, the defendants were the couriers and packers of the drugs into the individual packets.

The third step is to identify where in the relevant band the defendant would come. Bearing in mind the above role, I take into account the third band in the guidelines and I consider they should still lie at the appropriate starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment.

The fourth step is a consideration of any aggravating factors. This is D1’s third similar conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment in 2014 and 12 months’ imprisonment in 2022. Within four months from being discharged from prison in July 2022, he committed this trafficking offence in November. I consider his previous convictions to be an aggravating feature, and for this, I enhance the sentence by 9 months, making a starting point of 12 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

There are no aggravating features in respect of D2 and D3.

The fifth step is to consider all mitigating factors, bearing in mind that in this particular branch of sentencing, personal circumstances would generally count for little. The most significant mitigating factor are the defendants’ pleas of guilty at the earliest opportunity. They will therefore benefit from a one-third discount to their sentence.

Defendants, may I ask you to stand up, please. The starting point being 12 years’ imprisonment for D2 and D3, that term shall be reduced to 8 years’ imprisonment, to which D2 and D3 shall serve in respect of Charge 2.

Turning to D1, the starting point being 12 years 9 months’ imprisonment, that term shall be reduced to 8 years and 6 months, to which he shall be sentenced in respect of Charge 2, trafficking in dangerous drugs.

D2 and D3 may be seated.

D1, you have pleaded guilty to dangerous driving in respect of Charge 1. The aggravating factor in this charge was that you were deliberating driving dangerously to escape from the police despite being asked by them to stop your car. You were speeding excessively in the amount of about 50 kilometres over the speed limit for the majority of the route. You had a complete disregard for your fellow passengers who were scared with your driving manner. It was prolonged and persistent over 7 kilometres.

I do not accept four minutes is a very short period of time, and you also failed to stop at red lights and drove down the road the wrong way. You drove with selfish disregard to other road users, and your passengers were fortunate that they did not incur any injuries, and that you did not have any accident or cause accidents with other road users.

I accept that you have shown remorse through your plea of guilty and compensating for the damage to the railings. There are no guidelines or tariffs for the offence of dangerous driving. Had you been convicted after trial, I would have taken a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment. Giving you a full one-third discount for your plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, I reduce that term to one of 16 months’ imprisonment. You are also to be disqualified from driving for 1 year and 6 months.

The dangerous-driving offence and the trafficking in dangerous drugs are separate and distinct offences although committed at the same time. I consider that part of the sentence should be served consecutively to the sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs. In the circumstances, I order 3 months of the term to run consecutive to the trafficking in dangerous drugs, the remainder of the term to run concurrent, making the total term to which you, D1, shall serve 8 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

Overall, in the trafficking principles, the sixth step is to observe the overall sentence passed to ensure that it was fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances. I consider that it is so in relation to all the defendants.