COURT: You pleaded the guilty before me to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
The particulars of the charge, in short, are that on 30 May 2023, at Room 2 of Unit D, 6th Floor, No. 427 Reclamation Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, you unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely:
(1) 1,503.75 grammes of cocaine;
(2) 48.25 grammes of ketamine;
(3) 46.16 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, ‘Ice’;
(4) 380.29 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (including monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride);
(5) 741.14 grammes of cannabis; and
(6) 0.64 grammes of tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) together with trace quantities of cocaine and THC.
The charge arises from these facts.
On 30 May 2023, the police conducted an anti-narcotics operation near 427 Reclamation Street, Mong Kok (“the Building”). The Building was placed under surveillance from around 1 pm. At around 6 pm, DPC11313 observed the defendant opening a window in Room 2, on the 6th Floor of the Building (“Room 2”). At around 6.42 pm, the defendant was observed closing the window and stepping out of the Building.
The police intercepted the defendant and found on his person three keys and two mobile phones. One of the keys opened Unit D on the 7th Floor (“Unit 7D”), which was searched and found to contain no contraband. The police then escorted the defendant to the 6th Floor. The lock to Room 2 was suspected to be damaged.
Room 2 was of around 100 square feet in size with a toilet en suite. The police seized a large quantity of drugs and drug-processing paraphernalia from Room 2, including a hydraulic press, a metal mould containing traces of cocaine, a sealing machine, three electronic scales, a roll of adhesive tape bearing the defendant’s fingerprints, a box of rubber gloves, and empty resealable plastic bags.
The drugs seized from Room 2 were certified by the government chemist. In summary, the drugs comprised at least:
(1) 1,503.75 grammes of cocaine;
(2) 48.25 grammes of ketamine;
(3) 625.94 grammes of cannabis resin, and 115.2 grammes of herbal cannabis (totalling 741.14 grammes of cannabis);
(4) 46.16 grammes of ‘Ice’;
(5) 15.29 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, and 365 grammes of monacetylmorphine hydrochloride (totalling 380.29 grammes);
(6) 0.64 grammes of THC and 0.2 grammes of cannabidiol; together with trace quantities of cocaine and THC.
In a video-recorded interview conducted on 31 May 2023, the defendant, under caution, admitted that the herbal cannabis in Room 2 belonged to him. He claimed it was given to him by a Chinese male who owed him money. He stated he had not consumed the cannabis and would provide it to his friend but had not yet done so. He claimed the lock to Room 2 was broken and that others could have entered.
The defendant had paid rents for both Room 2 and Unit 7D through cash deposits via ATMs. He now admits and accepts that at the material time, he knowingly possessed all the drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
Background and Mitigation
The defendant is a 40-year-old Pakistani national, born in January 1986 in Pakistan. He holds a Form 8 recognisance. He arrived in Hong Kong in 2009. He is single and lived alone in Room D, Floor 7, No. 427 Reclamation Street. He was educated to Primary 4 level and was unemployed at the time of the offence.
The defendant has two previous convictions. On 27 May 2011, he was convicted of taking employment while remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration, contrary to section 38AA(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115, and was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment. On 20 July 2015, he was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, he was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment.
In mitigation, counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant is remorseful and has pleaded guilty. Counsel submitted that an appropriate sentencing starting point is between 20 years and 6 months and 21 years, with a discount of 25 per cent for the plea of guilty.
Sentencing Considerations
I have considered the approach for sentencing those that trafficked in dangerous drugs. With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the most recent authority, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho. I now consider the six steps as set out in the case of Herry Jane Yusuph.
First step, the present case involves a cocktail of dangerous drugs. Applying the combined approach as set out in HKSAR v Islam Majharul and HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, I first identify the base drug.
Cocaine and heroin hydrochloride fall under the same guideline tariff in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang. I refer to the expert opinion of Dr Chong Yeow-kuan, dated 7 January 2026.
Dr Chong provided very helpful analysis of the degree of potency of one of the dangerous drugs in question, namely, 6-monoacetylmorphine, which is similar in potency to heroin. Therefore, for the present purpose, I treat it equivalently to heroin hydrochloride.
The total cocaine and heroin component is therefore 1,503.75 grammes of cocaine and 380.29 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (including monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride), totalling 1,884.04 grammes. This represents the most serious component, constituting the substantial majority of the drugs seized by sentencing weight. I therefore identify the aggregate cocaine and heroin as the base drug, and the multiplicity of drugs within this aggregation will be reflected at the fourth step.
Under Huang Ruifang at paragraph 62, trafficking in 1,500 to 5,000 grammes of cocaine or heroin hydrochloride attracts a starting point range of 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment. On a mathematical basis, 1,884.04 grammes attracts a notional starting point of 20 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. That is 245 months.
I now calculate the notional starting points for each of the secondary drugs for the purpose of crosscheck tests:
(a) ‘Ice’ (46.16 grammes): Under Huang Ruifang at paragraph 66, band (ii), 10 to 70 grammes of ‘Ice’ attracts 7 to 11 years. By interpolation, 46.16 grammes attracts 9 years and 4 months. That is 112 months;
(b) Ketamine (48.25 grammes): Under Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, band (iii), 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine attracts 4 to 6 years. By interpolation, 48.25 grammes attracts 5 years and 10 months, namely, 70 months;
(c) Cannabis (741.14 grammes): Under HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi, band (a), up to 2,000 grammes of cannabis attracts up to 16 months. The herbal cannabis and cannabis resin are treated at a 1 to 1 ratio. By interpolation, 741.14 grammes attracts 5 months;
(d) THC (0.64 gramme): This is a de minimis quantity and I disregard it for the purposes of sentencing.
I apply the three cross-check tests on a global basis, taking the total weight of all drugs to be 2,720.23 grammes:
(a) Absurdity test: Assuming all 2,720.23 grammes to be cocaine or heroin, the starting point under Huang Ruifang, band (vi), would be 21 years and 4 months. That is 256 months. Assuming all to be ‘Ice’, the result is the same (256 months). As the bands for these drugs are identical above 1,500 grammes. See paragraph 67 of Huang Ruifang;
(b) Conversion test: Converting all drugs to their cocaine equivalent by measuring their respective starting points, the total cocaine equivalent is approximately 2,005 grammes, attracting a starting point of 20 years and 6 months. That is 246 months;
(c) Ratio test: Combining the starting points proportionally by weight ratio produces 14 years and 6 months (174 months). This figure is distorted downwards by the large weight of cannabis, which attracts a comparatively low starting point.
The absurdity and conversion tests produce results close to or above the base drug starting point of 245 months, confirming the base drug approach is appropriate. Having considered the test results, and in particular the notional starting points for ‘Ice’ (112 months) and ketamine (70 months), I adopt an upward adjustment of 7 months to account for the secondary drug components. The adjusted notional starting point is there for 252 months. That is 21 years.
Second step: the defendant’s role and culpability. I note the extensive drug-processing paraphernalia found in Room 2, including a hydraulic press, metal mould, sealing machine, electronic scales, rubber gloves, and adhesive tape bearing the defendant’s fingerprints. I am not persuaded that the defendant was merely a courier in its purest sense. That said, I accept that there is no direct evidence that the defendant was himself an actual or direct trafficker as contemplated by Herry Jane Yusuph. In the circumstances, I do not consider that the defendant’s sentence should deviate from the guidelines for couriers and storekeepers. There is no enhancement on account of the defendant’s role.
There is no international element in this case. The offence was entirely domestic.
Third step: placement within the guideline band. Considering the overall role and culpability of the defendant, I find that the adjusted notional starting point of 252 months (21 years), remains appropriate.
Fourth step: aggravating factors. I identify the following aggravating factors. First, the defendant holds a Form 8 recognisance. As confirmed in Lee Ming Ho, citing HKSAR v Ali Saif [2014] 1 HKLRD 238, the defendant’s immigration status on a Form 8 is a matter that relates to the person of the offender and remains a separate aggravating factor. I enhance the starting point by 6 months on this account.
Second, this case involves a multiplicity of drug types. There were no fewer than five distinct dangerous drugs seized: cocaine, heroin, ‘Ice’, ketamine, and cannabis. As held in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, that trafficking in multiple drug types reflects the wider market and enhanced danger to drug abusers. This enhancement is distinct from the upward adjustment already made at the first step to account for the quantity of the dangerous drugs. I enhance the starting point by a further 4 months on this account.
Third, the defendant has a previous conviction for simple possession of dangerous drugs in 2015. I note that this was a conviction for possession only, not trafficking, and do not make any enhancement on this regard.
After the enhancements, the starting point is 262 months, ie, 21 years and 10 months.
Fifth step: mitigating factors. The defendant did not plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. He initially pleaded not guilty and was committed for trial on 5 June 2025. He subsequently changed his plea and the case was listed for a plea and sentence on 19 November 2025.
Applying the principles in HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1, as the defendant changed his plea after committal but before trial dates to be fixed, I find that it is appropriate to offer a discount of one quarter. Applying this discount, the sentence is rounded down to 196 months.
As for the personal and family circumstances of the defendant, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that they carry little weight in serious drug trafficking cases. I do not make any further reduction on this account.
At today’s hearing, Mr Raffell submitted that irrespective of the development of the case at the committal stage and the late indication of guilty plea, the defendant has a genuine exclamation of guilt and the defendant with his limited means still made a charitable donation of $300 to the support fund for Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po. As such, I exercise my discretion to reduce the sentence by 2 months.
Sixth step: totality and overall fairness. After the enhancements and deduction as stated, the sentence is 194 months’ imprisonment. I have stood back and considered the sentence as a whole. The sentence is undoubtedly severe. However, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, the quantity and variety of the dangerous drugs involved, the defendant’s role and culpability, I am satisfied that the sentence is fair, just and balanced to the offence as well as to the defendant.
Defendant, you are sentenced to 194 months’ imprisonment. That is 16 years and 2 months’ imprisonment for this offence.
