HKSAR v. Tsang Hou in

HCCC 350/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 350 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: You have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. The particulars of the charge are that, on 19 April 2024, at Sai Yee Street at the junction of Bute Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, you unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 122 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 122 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The Facts

The charge arises from these facts.

In the evening on 19 April 2024, police set up a roadblock and conducted a snap check at Sai Yee Street near the junction of Bute Street in Mong Kok. At about 2043 hours, police intercepted a GoGoVan at the roadblock as they found the defendant, who was sitting at the rear passenger seat, acting furtively.

The defendant alighted from the vehicle and police conducted a body search on him. Upon search, police found one plastic packet of 122 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 122 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride inside a tealeaf packaging in the defendant’s bag. The estimated street value of the dangerous drug seized was HK$60,878. Police arrested the defendant for trafficking in a dangerous drug. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was helping someone to carry the ‘Ice’ for a reward of HK$1,000.

At the time of the arrest, the defendant had one mobile phone and cash of HK$39.50. A subsequent search of the defendant’s residence in Yuen Long found no suspicious items. At the video-recorded interview, the defendant remained silent under caution.

The defendant now admits and accepts that at the material time he unlawfully trafficked in all the dangerous drug seized.

Background and Mitigation

The defendant was born in Macau. He was 31 years old at the time of the offence and is now 33 years old. He is single and the only child in his family. His father died in a traffic accident in 1997 when the defendant was about 5 years old. His mother, now aged 62, raised him on her own. The defendant was educated up to Form 5. He previously worked as a transportation and construction worker. He was unemployed at the time of the arrest.

While on remand, the defendant was referred to the Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital for psychiatric assessment. He was suspected to be suffering from schizophrenia and displayed symptoms consistent with psychotic disorder, including severe insomnia, tremor, hearing voices, and heightened suspiciousness. Medication was prescribed.

The defendant has previous convictions. Of relevance, he was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs in September 2010, for which he was sentenced to a probation order of 18 months, and again in August 2013 for which he was sentenced to a detention centre order. He was last discharged on 9 January 2014. He also has two convictions in 2023 and 2024 for offences related to possession and sale of liquor without a licence.

In mitigation, counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant’s role was limited to that of a courier for a promised fee of HK$1,000. Counsel pointed out that there was no material before the court to suggest that the defendant organised the operation, financed the drugs, or exercised any control over supply or distribution. Counsel further submitted that the surrounding circumstances supported this characterisation: at the time of arrest, the defendant had only HK$39.50 in cash and one mobile phone, and no suspicious items were found at his residence.

Counsel submitted that the defendant became involved in the offence due to financial pressure. During the pandemic, the defendant had no income and accumulated debts of about HK$170,000. A friend introduced him to another person who said he could make “quick money”. Counsel submitted that this was not advanced as an excuse but as context showing the defendant was not a planner or a decision maker.

A letter in mitigation from the defendant’s mother has been placed before and hence considered by this court.

Sentencing Considerations

I have considered the approach to 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 Herry Jane Yusuph.

First step, the relevant guideline for trafficking in methamphetamine hydrochloride is set out in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang which provides that trafficking in 70 to 300 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride attracts a starting-point range of 11 to 15 years’ imprisonment after trial.

The quantity involved in the present case is 122 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. On a mathematical basis, this quantity attracts a notional starting point of 11 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

Second step and third step, I accept that on the facts, the defendant was acting as a courier who was arrested whilst carrying the drugs. The defendant admitted under caution that he was helping someone to carry the drugs for a reward of 1,000. No paraphernalia was found at his residence. There is no evidence to indicate that his role went beyond that of a courier.

As held by the Court of Appeal in Herry Jane Yusuph, the guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs are devised for those at the bottom of the trafficking hierarchy, namely the courier or storekeeper. As such, there is no enhancement on account of the defendant’s role.

Considering the overall role and culpability of the defendant, I find a starting point of 11 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, namely 142 months, is appropriate.

Fourth step, the defendant has two previous convictions for possession of dangerous drugs in 2010 and 2013. These are convictions for possession, not trafficking. The last drug-related conviction predated the present offence by over 10 years. I do not consider these convictions to be aggravating factors warranting an enhancement of the starting point.

I find no other aggravating factors beyond those inherent in the offence itself and those already reflected in the assessment of the role and culpability.

Fifth step, the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity for which he is entitled to a full one-third discount reduction. The starting point of 142 months is therefore reduced by one‑third, resulting in a sentence of 94 months’ imprisonment.

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 note the defendant’s difficult personal background, including the loss of his father at a young age and his mother’s sole efforts in raising him. I also note the psychiatric referral during the remand. However, these circumstances do not warrant any further reduction.

Sixth step, after the deduction, as stated, the sentence is 94 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 and 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.

You are sentenced to 7 years and 10 months’ imprisonment for this offence.