HKSAR v. Fang Wancheng and Another

HCCC 30/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 30 OF 2026

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The 1st accused, Mr Fang, pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, (the 1st charge), and together with the 2nd accused, a further count of trafficking in dangerous drugs (Charge 2). They admitted to a set of facts at the committal proceedings in the Eastern Magistrates earlier in January this year and were committed to this court for sentence.

The 2nd accused, Mr Wang, similarly pleaded guilty to Charge 2 against him, and admitted to the same set of facts. He too was committed to this court for sentence.

The 1st charge alleges that on 18 September 2023, near Lamppost AA1244, Overseas Court at Boundary Street in Kowloon, he, the 1st accused, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 39.89 grammes of a solid containing 33.71 grammes of cocaine and 24.53 grammes of a solid containing 20.02 grammes of ketamine.

Charge 2 is against both accused and it is alleged in that charge that on the same date at Flat E, 2nd Floor, Overseas Court, both accused unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 703.38 grammes of a solid containing 570.32 grammes of ketamine, 45.5 grammes of a solid containing 35 grammes of cocaine and 452.9 grammes of herbal cannabis.

The facts giving rise to the offences are these.

At around 9.26 pm on 18 September 2023, a party of plainclothes police officers were conducting anti-narcotics operation in the vicinity of Boundary Street. They spotted the 1st accused walking towards the direction of Earl Street, and was holding a mobile phone as well as a black plastic bag.

The officers tried to intercept the 1st accused, who, upon seeing the police officers, turned around and walked away. He was eventually subdued by the officers after some struggles. The police found in the plastic bag held by the 1st accused a total of six plastic bags containing 179 plastic bags containing suspected cocaine and 36 plastic bags containing suspected ketamine.

These suspected drugs were later confirmed to be 39.89 grammes of a solid containing 33.71 grammes of cocaine and 24.53 grammes of a solid containing 20.02 grammes of ketamine. These form the subject matter of the 1st charge against the 1st accused.

On body search, the police found on the 1st accused, items including a bundle of three keys. Upon inquiry, the 1st accused told the police that the keys were for access to Flat 2E upstairs.

Under caution on arrest for trafficking in the dangerous drugs, the 1st accused admitted that the items found on him were “B jai” and “C jai”, and there were more in the apartment upstairs. The officers proceeded upstairs and gained entry into Room E on the 2nd Floor of Overseas Court using one of the keys found on the 1st accused. The 1st accused was at the material time the tenant of Room E.

Upon entry into Room E, the police officers found the 2nd accused sitting on the floor of the living room therein. There were found a large quantity of suspected dangerous drugs and packaging paraphernalia.

The police found, amongst other items: 11 plastic bags which contained suspected ketamine; three plastic bags containing suspected cocaine; as well as two electronic scales; a lighter; two marker pens; a plastic spoon; two vacuum sealers; two rolls of vacuum sealing bags; a large quantity of black plastic bags, as well as transparent resealable plastic bags, and a rental agreement showing the 1st accused’s name.

These dangerous drugs seized were later confirmed to be 703.38 grammes of a solid containing 570.32 grammes of ketamine, and 45.5 grammes of a solid containing 35 grammes of cocaine. In addition to these drugs, the police also found three plastic bags containing 33 plastic packets of herbal cannabis from a cabinet under the sink inside Room E. These herbal cannabis, separately stored, weighed in total 452.9 grammes.

In summary, there were found inside the flat, a total of 703.38 grammes of a solid containing 570.32 grammes of ketamine, 45.5 grammes of a solid containing 35 grammes of cocaine, and 452.9 grammes of herbal cannabis.

On their arrest for trafficking in these further drugs, the 1st accused said that he and “Ah Ming” had been packaging the drugs in the premises for distribution and that he would earn $2,000 a day.

The average retail price for ketamine at the time of the offences was $488 per gramme. For crack cocaine was 1,293 per gramme. For herbal cannabis, $178 per gramme.

Accordingly, the dangerous drug seized for Charge 1 could have been sold at street level for around $63,549, whereas the drugs seized in respect of Charge 2 could have been sold at street level for around $482,697.

The defendants’ background and mitigation

The 1st accused was born in April 2003 in Guangxi and he came to Hong Kong in 2012. He is now 23 years of age and was 20 at the time of the offences. He received education up to secondary Form 2 level and before the offences he worked as a construction worker earning around $20,000 a month. He lived with his parents in a public housing estate before the offences. He is single.

In mitigation, I was told on behalf of the 1st accused that he initially attended a special needs primary school, where he was able to achieve awards in both academics and sports. However, upon promotion to a mainstream secondary school, the 1st accused struggled hard and eventually withdrew from school after completing Form 2.

It was said that he committed the present offences in order to earn quick money as he had been overspending and was poor in financial management.

Two mitigation letters were submitted on his behalf, one prepared by the 1st accused himself and the other by his father. In summary, the 1st accused expressed remorse and owned up to the offences stating that he was blinded by money and that he is prepared to bear the consequence of his mistake, which is reflected by his plea of guilty to both offences.

In respect of the 2nd accused, he was born in July 1993 in Taishan. He moved to Hong Kong in 2008 with his father and his elder sister. He is now aged 32 and was 29 at the time of the offence. He is the elder of the two accused. He received education up to Secondary Form 6 level.

Before the offence, he also worked as a construction worker. He is single and before the offence lived with his mother in a public housing estate. I was told in mitigation that his parents are divorced. His mother works as a construction worker and is about to retire soon this year. His father is unemployed and lives in the mainland. The elder sister lives separately from them.

Before his arrest, he provided financial support for his mother and father in the sum of $5,000 per month. I was told that during the pandemic, the 2nd accused was unable to secure stable and sufficient income, as a result of which he resorted to borrowing and accumulated debts to the tune of $1,100,000. Again, it is said that he committed the offence under financial pressure and was influenced by undesirable peers.

In his mitigation letter, he seeked leniency from this court and expressed his wish to be able to be released soon so that he could care for his parents and fulfil his duties as their son. Whilst realistically accepting that the role of the 2nd accused is one which is more than a mere courier or storekeeper, Mr Boey, on behalf of the 2nd accused, urged the court to exercise restraint in enhancing the starting point for that aggravation.

The same point may well be said of the 1st accused as well. They are both of clear record, these being their first criminal conviction, and they are going to face a substantially long sentence for their involvement in the trafficking activities.

Sentencing

D1

In respect of the 1st accused, this case involves the seizure of dangerous drugs from D1’s possession at different locations on the same day. The sentencing approach in HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75 is relevant. In that case, the Court of Appeal held that when sentencing two trafficking offences where different quantities of dangerous drugs were found in the offender’s possession on the same day, but at different locations, the sentencing judge should regard the two offences as representing one occasion of possession of the total quantity of drugs and impose sentences on both offences for that total, and then make the sentences concurrent with one another. Such an approach would more truly reflect the offender’s culpability.

In light of the circumstances in the present case, I shall adopt that basis to sentence the 1st accused, bearing in mind the sentencing approach as set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as expounded by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

I shall sentence the 1st accused as follows.

The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band or bracket applicable to the quantity of drugs involved. The narcotic content of the total quantity of the dangerous drugs seized in respect of the 1st accused was 68.71 grammes of cocaine, 590.34 grammes of ketamine, and 452.9 grammes of herbal cannabis.

These quantities of drugs attract the sentencing bracket of 8 to 12 years for the cocaine; 9 to 12 years for the ketamine; and up to 16 months for the herbal cannabis. See HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] HKLRD 138, SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, and HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329.

According to the respective sentencing guidelines, the starting point upon arithmetic calculation for the individual drugs concerned would be 8 years and 6 months for the cocaine, 11 years and 10 months for the ketamine, and about 3.6 months for the cannabis.

If one adopts the individual approach by adding the three starting points up, the total starting point would be 20 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, which is unfairly high and does not properly reflect the justice of the case. So I will adopt the combined approach which can achieve a more reasonable and realistic sentence. This approach involves the identification of a base drug and the starting point relevant to that base drug, and then adjust it upward by taking into account the remaining drugs.

As between cocaine, ketamine and cannabis, cocaine is the more serious drug in terms of potency and I will accordingly adopt cocaine as the base drug in this case.

In determining the adjustment for the remaining drugs, I will adopt the approach as stated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Islam S M Majharul [2023] HKLRD 146.

In doing so, I will cross-check the starting point or the overall starting point to be adopted against the three tests, namely, absurdity test, conversion test and ratio test as explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong. In doing so, I will also ignore or disregard the cannabis from the calculation given its significantly lower potency.

According to the absurdity test, if all the drugs seized were cocaine, the starting point would be one of 16 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. Under the conversion test, treating all the drugs as cocaine would result in a starting point of 12 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, whereas treating all the drugs as ketamine would result in a starting point of 13 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. Under the ratio test, the starting point would be, upon calculation, one of 12 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

In the light of all the circumstances of this case and the results of the three tests that I have just mentioned, I consider that the overall starting point for the 1st accused should be one of 12 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. That is based purely on the quantity of the drugs involved before an assessment of the role and culpability of the 1st accused, which brings me to the second step requiring an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence before the court.

As revealed by the facts admitted by the 1st accused, his role was not merely a courier or storekeeper. He admitted under caution that he had been packaging the drugs in the premises for distribution. At the time of his arrest on the street, he was carrying six bags containing a total of 225 bags of cocaine and ketamine.

There were also found inside the flat, paraphernalia including electronic scales, vacuum sealer and a large number of plastic bags and resealable plastic bags.

It is my view that the 1st accused’s role was higher than that of a mere courier or storekeeper, adding to his culpability, which will have to be reflected in the starting point to be adopted.

The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the sentencing guidelines the 1st accused comes. The sentencing guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs as well established by authorities are based on the role of a defendant as a mere courier or storekeeper.

In view of my finding of the heightened role and culpability of the 1st accused, I consider that a starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate, that is, an upward adjustment of 3 months from the starting point of 12 years and 9 months I have earlier on identified based on the quantities alone.

The fourth step requires a consideration of aggravating factors which may bear on the notional sentence after trial. This case involves more than one type of drugs, including drugs of high potency, such as cocaine, ketamine and there were also found herbal cannabis. I consider that to be an aggravating feature which warrants an enhancement of 3 months, bringing the notional sentence to 13 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

The fifth step requires a consideration of any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that personal circumstances will count for little unless they are exceptional. There is only one realistic mitigating factor which is the 1st accused’s timely plea of guilty, which plea reflects his remorse, for which I will give him the full one-third discount, bringing the sentence down to 8 years and 10 months.

This sentence of 8 years and 10 months is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the offences and of the 1st accused.

D2

I turn now to the 2nd accused. Adopting the same sentencing approach as I have just explained, for the quantities of dangerous drugs involved in respect of the 2nd accused who faces only the 2nd charge and applying the combined approach, the overall starting point of 12 years and 3 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate based solely on the quantity and types of drugs involved.

As to his role and culpability, I find also that his role was higher than that of a mere courier or storekeeper. For that, I would enhance the sentence by 3 months, bringing the overall notional sentence after trial to 12 years and 6 months.

There is also present the aggravating factor of the involvement of more than one type of dangerous drugs. For that, I will enhance the sentence by 3 months, bringing the sentence to 12 years and 9 months before discount for mitigation.

The only mitigating factor is his plea of guilty for which I will allow the full one-third discount, thus bringing the sentence down to 8 years and 6 months. This represents a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the 2nd accused.

The 1st accused, you are sentenced to 8 years and 10 months for each of Charge 1 and Charge 2. The sentences are to run wholly concurrently with each other.

For the 2nd accused, you are sentenced to 8 years and 6 months for Charge 2.