HKSAR v. Fung Lee Jing Regent

HCCC 242/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 242 OF 2025

________________

________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

The Charge

1.On 17 July 2025, the defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The charge involved 1,079.9 grammes of a solid containing 724.1 grammes of ketamine and 6.29 grammes of a solid containing 5.68 grammes of cocaine.  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 7 January 2025 and she was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed her guilty plea to the trafficking charge and her admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.The facts of the case can be summarized as follows.

3.On 10 July 2023, the police intercepted the defendant when she was leaving her residential flat at Tai Wo Hau Estate, Kwai Chung (“the Flat”).  The police entered and searched the Flat.  They found, inter alia, the following:

(1) 224 plastic bags and a plastic bowl containing 1,079.9 grammes of a solid containing 724.1 grammes of ketamine;

(2) 40 plastic bags containing a total of 6.29 grammes of a solid containing 5.68 grammes of cocaine;

(3) 3 electronic scales; and

(4) 237 transparent resealable plastic bags.

4.The defendant was arrested for “trafficking in dangerous drugs” and under caution, she admitted selling the dangerous drugs.

5.In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted under caution that (i) she had rented the Flat herself and she alone had the keys to the Flat; (ii) she had obtained the dangerous drugs from a person called “Ah Kay”, and she was responsible for repackaging the dangerous drugs into smaller packets and selling the drugs; and (iii) she was not addicted to dangerous drugs.

6.In July 2023, the estimated retail price of the dangerous drugs seized was HK$576,949.

7.In the Summary of Facts, the defendant admitted that at the material time, she had knowingly possessed the dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Background andmitigation

8.To assist the Court in the sentencing process, counsel acting for the defendant, Ms Kam, filed with the Court a set of written mitigation submissions.

9.The defendant is now aged 39 and has a clear record.  She is a single parent with a son who is aged 14.  Her son has ADHD and requires special attention both at home and at school.  

10.Ms Kam told the Court that the defendant lost her job in around 2021 due to the pandemic and after that, she had difficulties in looking for a stable job.  As a single parent, she started to have a heavy financial burden and through the introduction by a friend, she became involved in dangerous drugs. 

11.Ms Kam urged upon the Court that there are mitigating factors in the present case, namely that the defendant’s full cooperation with the police upon arrest, her plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, her deep remorse for the offence and the unlikelihood of re-offending.  The Court was also told that the defendant took a few courses whilst in custody so that she could join her father’s company after her release from prison, hoping to take good care of her son and herself in a proper way in the future.

12.In the written mitigation submissions filed with the Court, the Defence raised the issue that two of the plastic bags of the dangerous drugs seized were for the defendant’s self-consumption given that they were not of a very pure quality.  At the sentencing hearing today, the Court told Ms Kam that the defendant would need to give evidence on this matter if this mitigation was to be maintained.  The proceedings were then adjourned for Ms Kam to take instructions.  Her instructions were that this mitigation submission would no longer be pursued. 

Sentence

13.In sentencing the defendant, I will follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

14.I should first identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantities of the dangerous drugs in question.  In the present case, two types of dangerous drugs were seized. 

15.When more than one type of dangerous drugs are involved in a trafficking offence, the court will adopt a combined approach in sentencing.  As explained in HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung, CACC 208/2024 [2026] HKCA 885, the ratio test is more readily aligned with the present framework of dangerous drugs sentencing and is appropriately deployed as a means of cross-checking whether a composite sentence is appropriate.

16.The tariffs for sentencing offences of trafficking in cocaine are set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.  For up to 10 grammes of cocaine, the starting point is 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment (§62 of the Judgment). The sentencing tariffs for trafficking in ketamine are set out in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1.  For 600 – 1,000 grammes of ketamine, the starting point is 12 to 14 years’ imprisonment (§95 of the Judgment).

17.In the present case, according to the tariffs, the quantity of cocaine seized would attract a notional starting point of 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, whereas the quantity of ketamine seized a notional starting point of 12 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.  To take into account these two quantities of dangerous drugs, I would use the larger quantity of ketamine as the base drug and adopt a notional starting point of 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  Applying the ratio test as a cross check would also yield a sentence of 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

18.The Court shall need to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court and the mitigation submissions advanced on her behalf. In the present case, the dangerous drugs were kept in the Flat rented by the defendant.  Under caution, she admitted that she was responsible for repackaging the dangerous drugs into smaller packets and selling the drugs.

19.In my assessment, the defendant’s role was that of the storekeeper and the actual trafficker.  For that role, I will enhance the notional starting point by 9 months to 13 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.  

20.Turning to aggravating factors, if any.  It is an aggravating factor for an accused to traffic in more than one type of dangerous drugs “because in such a situation the trafficker is able to cater to a far wider market than the trafficker in only one kind of drug.” (See HKSAR v Yim Hung Lui Ricky, CACC 266/2011, and HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644). 

21.In the present case, two types of dangerous drugs were involved.  I will increase the enhanced starting point of 13 years and 5 months’ imprisonment by 4 months, taking it to 13 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. 

22.Dealing with mitigating factors.  Given the seriousness of the offence in question, the real and strong mitigating factor in the present case is the defendant’s guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  For that, she is entitled to a full one-third discount.  In light of her background and other mitigations advanced on papers, I shall give the defendant a total discount of 40% (inclusive of the one-third discount due to her guilty plea), resulting in a final sentence of 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

23.Lastly, I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 8 years and 3 months.

Mr. Ng Wing Kit, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the Prosecution

Ms Vania Kam, instructed by Messrs. Eric Cheung & Lau, for the Defendant