HKSAR v. Cheung Chi Ting, Andrey

HCCC 28/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3558

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 28 OF 2026

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug and a charge of possession of a dangerous drug. He pleaded guilty at the committal proceedings at the Magistrates’ Court and was committed to this court for sentence. Charge 1 alleges that on 18 July 2023, outside Kwun Hei Court, No.3 Sheung Lok Street, Ho Man Tin, he unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 12,080 grammes of a solid containing 10,269 grammes of cocaine. Charge 2 alleges that on the same day, at Room 3817, Yat Man House, Ho Man Tin Estate, he unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 5,080 grammes of a solid containing 4,148 grammes of cocaine. Charge 3 is the possession of a dangerous drug charge which alleges that on the same day, at Room 3817, he had in his possession 0.04 grammes of a solid containing cocaine for his own consumption.

The facts giving rise to these offences are these. On the date in question, Narcotic Bureau officers conducted an operation in Ho Man Tin. At around 12.31 pm, one of the officers in plainclothes saw the defendant carrying two paper bags and walking out from Yat Man House, Ho Man Tin Estate. The officer declared his identity and tried to intercept the defendant for enquiry. The defendant ignored and fled. The officer gave chase and the defendant put up a struggle with the officer, during which both of them fell onto the ground. Also dropped onto the ground were the two paper bags held by the defendant in which blocks of suspected dangerous drugs were exposed. The defendant was eventually subdued and was arrested for trafficking in the dangerous drugs.

Upon checking, the suspected dangerous drugs found inside the two paper bags were confirmed to contain a total of 12 blocks containing a total of 12,080 grammes of a solid containing 10,269 grammes of cocaine. These drugs form the subject matter of the 1st charge.

Under caution, the defendant stated that these 12 blocks of dangerous drugs belonged to him and he accepted money to deliver the drugs to others. He told the officer that he “guessed” that those were dangerous drugs. Mobile phones and keys were found on the defendant upon body search. He was then brought back to Room 3817 of Yat Man House, Ho Man Tin Estate, which was his residence. With the keys found on him, the police gained entry into the flat.

Upon search of the flat, five blocks containing a total of 5,080 grammes of a solid containing 4,148 grammes of cocaine and 10 pieces of $20 banknotes, each folded into a packet containing a total of 0.02 grammes of a solid containing cocaine were found on top of a table in the living room.

Furthermore, 19 pieces of $20 banknotes, each folded into a packet containing a total of 0.02 grammes of a solid containing cocaine were found inside a drawer of a cabinet outside the toilet. Other personal items of the defendant were found inside the flat.

Upon further caution for the offence of trafficking in these further drugs, the defendant again said that he “guessed” that those five blocks were dangerous drugs and they belonged to him. He said that he was waiting for instructions to make delivery of those drugs and that those $20 banknotes were used to wrap ‘coke’, meaning cocaine, for his own consumption.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant stated under caution that he was residing at the premises and that the registered tenant of the flat in question was his grandmother. CCTV records of Yat Man House confirmed that the defendant left Yat Man House empty‑handed at around 10.46 am on 17 July 2023, that is a day before the offences. He returned to Yat Man House with four fully loaded plastic bags in his hands at around 10.49 am. On 18 July 2023, he was seen from the CCTV footages to have entered the lift of Yat Man House holding two paper bags in his hands at 12.25 pm. He left the lift a minute later and emerged from Yat Man House carrying the same two paper bags. That was shortly before he was intercepted by the police officers in question.

The estimated street value of all of the cocaine seized was to the tune of HK$18.4 million in powder form or HK$20.4 million in crack cocaine form.

By his plea of guilty, he accepts that he unlawfully trafficked in 14.417 kilogrammes of cocaine the subject of Charge 1 and Charge 2 seized from himself and from the flat in question, and that he had in his possession 0.04 grammes of a solid containing cocaine seized from the flat in question.

Defendant’s background and mitigation

Defendant is now aged 29, of clear record. He was born in Singapore and was raised in Hong Kong. At the time of the offences, he was 26 years old. Both of his parents passed away. His mother passed away when he was 18 years old, his father when he was 24 years old. His grandmother is now 84 years old. Prior to the offences, he was living alone in the flat in question at the public housing estate. He received education up to secondary Form 3 level and previously worked as a casual worker earning about $10,000 per month.

In mitigation, it was said on his behalf that he committed the present offences in order to make quick money. The court was urged on his behalf to take into account his young age, clear record, and the personal circumstances of the defendant.

In mitigation, there were submitted to the court four mitigating letters written by the defendant himself, a Reverend Lee - a chaplain working at the Correctional Services Department, a Mr Lui - a long-term friend of the defendant, and a Mr Mo - the defendant’s former employer. These letters purported to show that the defendant was of previous good character and was remorseful for his commission of the offences in question. It is said that the defendant became addicted to drugs following the unexpected death of his father when he was 24 years old, and that he was then exploited and influenced by others, leading to his commission of the present offences.

Sentencing for Charge 1 and Charge 2

The defendant’s involvement in the first two charges concerned trafficking in dangerous drugs seized first on the street from himself and then on the flat in which he resided. In these circumstances, the principle as set out in HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75 are relevant. In that case, the Court of Appeal held that when sentencing two trafficking offences involving different quantities of dangerous drugs found in the defendant’s possession on the same day but at different locations, the sentencing judge should regard the two offences as representing one occasion of possession for the purpose of trafficking of the total amount of drugs, impose sentences for both offences for that total quantity and then make the sentences concurrent with each other. Such an approach would more truly reflect the defendant’s culpability. I shall sentence the defendant in this case on the same basis, namely that he was in overall possession of the drugs the subject matter of Charges 1 and 2 for the purpose of trafficking.

In sentencing the defendant for both Charge 1 and Charge 2, the court also bear in mind the approach as set out in Herry Jane Yusuph, reported at [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as expounded by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186. For the narcotic content of the drugs seized for Charges 1 and 2, namely 14.417 kilogrammes of cocaine, the relevant sentencing bracket applicable would be from 24 years to 27 years (see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138).

The defendant, I accept, was acting as a storekeeper or courier of the dangerous drugs. In light of that, the appropriate overall starting point for the quantity of drugs involved would be 26 years and 9 months.

I accept that there are no other aggravating factors that require an enhancement of that notional sentence of the trial.

It is well established that in terms of mitigation for such serious offences, personal circumstances will count for little unless they are exceptional. There are no such exceptional personal circumstances present in the defendant’s case. The only mitigating factor that is available would be his timely plea of guilty, for which I will give him the full one-third discount, bringing the overall sentence for Charges 1 and 2 to 17 years 10 months. Such an overall sentence for Charges 1 and 2 is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all circumstances of the offences and of the offender.

Charge 3, possession

In respect of Charge 3, I consider the very small quantity of cocaine in question, namely 0.04 grammes of cocaine found in the folded $20 banknotes. That said, the court also consider the fact that these packets of cocaine for own consumption were found together with the bulk of cocaine seized from the flat in question. But for the fact that the subject quantity of cocaine in question were found together with the large quantity of cocaine the subject matter of Charge 1 and Charge 2, the possession charge would have been proceeded in the Magistrates’ Court.

In the light of these circumstances and having considered this very small quantity of drugs in question, I would adopt a starting point of 6 months for Charge 3.

Giving the full one-third discount for his plea of guilty to that charge, the sentence would be brought down to 4 months’ imprisonment.

Bearing in mind totality principle, I would order the sentence of Charge 3 to be served wholly concurrently with the sentence I would impose on each of Charge 1 and Charge 2.

Defendant, I am to sentence you in respect of Charge 1 and Charge 2 each to 17 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. In respect of Charge 3, I will sentence you to 4 months’ imprisonment. I would order all of the sentences to run concurrently, thus resulting in a total sentence of 17 years and 10 months.