HKSAR v. Tong Chun Man

HCCC 349/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 349 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: Now, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. The 1st charge alleged that on 15 March 2024, at Shek Yam East Estate, Tai Pak Tin Street, Kwai Chung, New Territories, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 1 kilogramme of a solid containing 801 grammes of cocaine.

The 2nd charge alleges that you, on the same date, at Room 1C, 6th Floor, Po Kai Mansion, No. 12 Wo Yi Hop Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 248 grammes of a solid containing 94.9 grammes of cocaine.

The total quantity of the cocaine involved in both charges is 895.9 grammes.

Admitted Facts

The facts admitted by you are as follow.

In the afternoon of 15 March 2024, customs officers conducted an anti‑narcotic operation in Kwai Chung. At about 3.25 pm, the defendant arrived at the parking meter outside Shek Ying Path by taxi, and left after a brief stop. About a minute later, the taxi reappeared at the same spot. Around eight minutes later, the defendant alighted from the taxi at the roundabout of Shek Yam East Estate, carrying a grey tote bag and frequently looked around.

Upon interception and search, a brick-shaped object was found in the bag. It was later confirmed by the Government Chemist to contain 1 kilogramme of a solid in the form of a block containing 801 grammes of cocaine. Two mobile phones and two sets of keys were also found on the defendant.

Upon arrest and caution, the defendant admitted ownership of the cocaine and knowledge of its nature. He stated he was awaiting phone instructions from someone to deliver the cocaine in return for HK$5,000 per delivery.

The defendant disclosed that one set of the keys belonged to Room 1C, 6th Floor, Po Kai Mansion, 12 Wo Yi Hop Road, Kwai Chung (the “Flat”). He led the officers to the Flat and access was gained using the keys seized from him.

Upon search of the Flat, a pack of unused transparent resealable plastic bags, an electronic scale and a transparent resealable plastic bag containing white solids were found in the kitchen. The white solids were confirmed by the Government Chemist to be 248 grammes of a solid containing 94.9 grammes of cocaine.

Under further arrest and caution, the defendant admitted ownership of the cocaine. He admitted that the scale and resealable bags were used to pack drugs, and that the Flat was rented by him for drug packaging. Records established that the defendant began renting the Flat on 4 March 2024. His DNA and fingerprints were found in the Flat.

The estimated market value of the seized drugs, namely 1,248 grammes of solid containing 895.9 grammes of cocaine, was HK$1,134,432.

The defendant admits and accepts that at all material times, he unlawfully trafficked in the dangerous drugs the subject of the two charges.

Background and Mitigation

The defendant is now 32 years old, having been born on 17 February 1994. He was 30 years old at the time of the offence. He is a Hong Kong permanent resident.

He was educated up to Form 5. He worked as a waiter and later as a warehouse worker. He was unemployed at the time of the offence.

The defendant is single. He lived with his parents and elder brother. He has a son who is now 7 years old. After his arrest, his relationship with the child’s mother ended, and the child is now primarily cared for by the defendant’s mother who is 66 years old.

The defendant has no previous convictions.

In mitigation, counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant’s involvement was driven by financial desperation following the loss of his employment, and not by greed. Counsel submitted that the defendant was a courier acting under instruction and was not an organiser, financier, controller, or decision-maker. His role places him at the lower end of the culpability.

Counsel further submitted that the defendant disclosed the existence of the Flat and led officers to it, allowing further drugs and paraphernalia to be seized promptly. While the defence does not overstate this, as it also revealed a further count of offending, it remains a form of practical cooperation that assisted law enforcement.

Counsel emphasised the defendant’s guilty plea and his understanding that a long-term imprisonment is unavoidable. The defendant intends to pursue further studies in prison and hopes to prepare himself for a lawful life after release.

Letters in mitigation from the defendant, his mother and his elder brother have 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: identifying the reference guideline band.The relevant guidelines for trafficking in cocaine are set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang. As there are two charges involved in the same drug, I consider each charge individually as well as on a global basis.

The 1st charge involved 801 grammes of cocaine. This falls within band (v), 500 to 1,500 grammes attracting a starting- point range of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment. On a mathematical calculation, this quantity attracts a notional starting point of 206 months, that is, 17 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

The 2nd charge involves 94.9 grammes of cocaine. This falls within band (iii), 50 to 200 grammes attracting a starting point range of 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment. On a mathematical basis, this quantity attracts a notional starting point of 110 months, that is, 9 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

The total quantity of cocaine across both charges is 895.9 grammes. On a global basis, this falls within band (v), 500 to 1,500 grammes. The global notional starting point is 211 months, that is 17 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

Second step: the defendant’s role and culpability. 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. I accept that on the facts, the defendant was acting as a courier who was awaiting instructions to deliver the cocaine. There is no evidence that the defendant was involved in the organisation or financing of the drug operation.

I note, however, that the defendant admitted renting the flat for the purpose of drug packaging, and that an electronic scale and unused resealable plastic bags were found therein. 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. As such, there is no enhancement on account of the defendant’s role.

Third step: placement within the guideline band. Considering the overall role and capability of the defendant, I find that the notional starting points I mentioned before remain appropriate. That is, 206 months for the 1st charge, 110 months for the 2nd charge, and 211 months on a global basis.

Fourth step: aggravating factors. I find no aggravating factors beyond those inherent in the offences itselves and those already reflected in the assessment of the role and capability.

Fifth step: mitigating factors. The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, for which he is entitled to the full one-third discount. The sentences after this deduction are: 1st charge, 137 months; 2nd charge, 73 months; and on a global basis, 140 months.

The defendant disclosed the existence of the flat and led officers there, which resulted in the seizure of further drugs and paraphernalia. Notwithstanding that this also revealed further offending, I accept that this constitutes practical co-operation with law enforcement. As held by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Jardin Rodela Maningas, CACC 278/2011, Stock VP at paragraph 16 says: “It is important as a matter of principle to encourage arrested persons to assist in this way, and in this case, there is no empty offer of assistance but a practical engagement in the exercise...” I am minded to reduce the sentence by 2 months on each charge and on a global basis on this account.

The defendant has no previous convictions but I will exercise my discretion to reduce the sentence by a further 1 month on this account.

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. The defendant’s financial difficulties and family responsibilities, while noted, do not warrant any separate reduction.

After the aforesaid deductions, the sentences are: 1st charge, 134 months; 2nd charge, 70 months; on a global basis, 137 months.

Sixth step: totality and overall fairness. I have stood back and considered the sentence as a whole. The sentence is undoubtedly severe. Having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the quantity of cocaine involved and the defendant’s role, I am satisfied that the sentence is just, fair, and balanced to the offences as well as to the defendant.

Defendant, on the 1st charge, you are sentenced to 134 months’ imprisonment, that is 11 years and 2 months. On the 2nd charge, 70 months’ imprisonment, that is 5 years and 10 months. 3 months of the 2nd charge shall be served consecutively to the sentence on the 1st charge. The remaining sentences are to run concurrently. You are therefore sentenced to a total of 137 months’ imprisonment, that is 11 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.