HKSAR v. Yau Ching Ching

HCCC 352/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 352 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: Defendant, 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 your charge are that you, on 5 August 2024, outside No. 133 Temple Street, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 22.8 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 22.8 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 0.37 grammes of a solid containing 0.2 grammes of methamphetamine.

The Facts

The charge arises from these facts.

On 5 August 2024, a team of police officers in uniform were on patrol in Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, Hong Kong. At about 9.44 pm, the police officers saw the defendant acting furtively outside No. 133 Temple Street, Yau Ma Tei, and hence intercepted her thereat for enquiry and search. At that time, the defendant was holding two mobile phones and one black zipped bag in her left hand and carrying with one black handbag.

Upon search, the following items were found in the black zipped bag that the defendant was then holding:

(a) one transparent resealable plastic bag containing three plastic bags containing a total of 22.6 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 22.6 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride; and

(b) one transparent resealable plastic bag containing 22 empty transparent resealable plastic bags.

The following items were found in the black handbag that the defendant was then carrying with:

(a) one grey zipped bag containing 15 cartridges containing a total of 17.4 grammes of a liquid containing etomidate, which is listed as Part I poison; and

(b) one rope bag which contained the following:

(i) one plastic bag containing 0.1 grammes of a solid containing traces of methamphetamine;

(ii) one plastic bag containing 0.27 grammes of a solid containing 0.2 grammes of methamphetamine;

(iii) one plastic bag containing 0.2 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride;

(iv) one electronic scale.

A total of 22.8 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 22.8 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 0.37 grammes of a solid containing 0.2 grammes of methamphetamine were found and seized from the defendant.

The defendant was then arrested and cautioned for “Trafficking in dangerous drugs”. Under caution, the defendant claimed that the drug ‘Ice’ was for her self‑consumption.

At the time of the arrest, the defendant had cash of HK$2,941 and two mobile phones on her person.

In the subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant stated under caution that she was a housewife. She was about to have meal alone in Yau Ma Tei area at the material time. The drug found on her was ‘Ice’ and was for her self‑consumption. She had a habit of consuming drugs, namely, ‘Ice’ and e‑cigarette. She started consuming drugs a few months ago.

House search was conducted at the defendant’s reported residence in Tsuen Wan. Nothing suspicious was found therein upon search. The defendant now admits and accepts that at the material time, she unlawfully trafficked in all the dangerous drugs seized.

Background and Mitigation

The defendant is 30 years old. She was educated up to Form 3. She was married in 2015. During the marriage, two sons aged 10 and 8 respectively were born. The accused was primarily responsible for their daily care.

The marriage later broke down. Since 2021, she has been separated from her husband following his extramarital relationship. The defendant had wished to divorce but the husband did not agree. The marital breakdown caused her significant distress, and she had previously experienced suicide attempt.

The defendant has also been caring for a young daughter (about 3 years old now) who is the husband’s child born out of the wedlock. The child’s biological parents failed to provide proper care, and the Social Welfare Department became involved. After discussion within the family, the defendant and her mother-in-law undertook to raise the child together. The defendant has treated the child as her own.

In around 2022 to 2023, during her period of separation, the defendant came to know her boyfriend, surnamed NGAI. The boyfriend provided her with emotional support at a time when she was under significant strain from separation and childcare responsibilities.

The defendant has a clear record, and since her remand, her children have been cared for mainly by her mother and the mother-in-law. The defendant’s mother, over 50 years old, has brought the children to visit her in custody. The defendant describes this as both a source of comfort and a matter of guilt, given the burden placed on her family and the absence imposed on her children.

In April 2024, the defendant came to know a male person, when she booked transport through a ride-hailing platform, Lalamove. On 27 June 2024, the boyfriend suicided by charcoal burning. The defendant described that she became emotionally overwhelmed. The defendant began using drugs to numb herself, and that she first started by smoking 太空油, etomidate, provided by that male person, free of charge. At the time, etomidate had not yet been legislatively regulated as a dangerous drug.

On the day of the offence, the male person told the defendant that he had asked someone to deliver ‘Ice’ to him. He took a package of ‘Ice’ from a private car, and he asked the defendant to keep it in her bag temporarily. She then placed the package into the bag she was carrying.

Later, the three of them took a taxi to Temple Street, namely, the male person, a friend, and the defendant. They ate snacks while walking, and when the defendant stopped at a toy store intending to buy toys for her children, she was stopped by police for an ID check and search. As a result of the search, the defendant was arrested.

Counsel submitted that the urine test report records that on 8 August 2024, the defendant was tested positive for amphetamine. Counsel also placed before me certain mitigation letters. I have considered them in considering the appropriate sentence.

Counsel submitted that the defendant’s role was limited in that she kept the package in her bag temporarily. The defendant received no payment and was not promised any reward. Counsel also submitted that the defendant tried to make proper use of her time whilst on remand, and during that period, she has worked proactively and is presently assigned to the checker duty department, earning about HK$1,100 per month.

The defendant is able to display self-discipline and willingness to reform. Counsel also submitted that the defendant continued to receive strong support from her family, and feels deep guilt with her conduct as well as the burden she brought to her family. The defendant undertook to this court that she would not reoffend in the future.

Sentencing Considerations

I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. With the Court of Appeal’s guideline 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 10 to 70 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride attracts a starting-point range of 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment after trial.

The quantity involved in the present case is 23 grammes of ‘Ice’. On a mathematical basis, this quantity attracts a notional starting point of 94 months’ imprisonment.

Second and third step, I accept that on the facts, the defendant was merely possessing the drugs temporarily for another. She was a simple courier for a potentially short period of time. There is no evidence to indicate that her 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 that a starting point of 94 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.

Fourth step, the defendant has no previous conviction record. 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 she is entitled to a full one-third discount. The starting point of 94 months is therefore reduced by one-third, resulting in a sentence of 62 months’ imprisonment.

Counsel submitted that the defendant abused her etomidate and was tested positive with amphetamine in her urine. I was told that the defendant used the drugs to numb herself from sadness due to the loss of her boyfriend.

As for the personal and family circumstances of the defendant, I note that the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that they carried little weight in serious trafficking cases. I note the defendant’s difficult personal background, including her encounters, the children she had to take care of, and the loss of her soulmate at a young age. I also note this is the first time the defendant went to the wrong side of the law. I accept that the defendant is deeply remorseful and has already begun her rehabilitation since her remand. With these factors, together with other exceptional factors, I am minded to exercise my discretion to give an extra 2 months reduction, which represents around an extra 2.8 per cent discount from the notional starting point. It results in 60 months’ imprisonment.

Sixth step, after the deduction as stated, the sentence is 60 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.

So, defendant, you are sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment for this offence.