HKSAR v. Wong Kai Chun

HCCC 168/2024

[2026] HKCFI 3481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 168 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant has been convicted by the jury after trial on one count of “trafficking in dangerous drugs”. The particulars of the charge state that between 25 July 2021 and 5 August 2021, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 80.633 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 79.335 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as the ‘Ice’ drug) and 23.78 kilogrammes of a solid containing 15.80 kilogrammes of ketamine.

2.Regarding the facts of the case, I think I only need to put on record that the prosecution does not suggest that the defendant was involved with the drugs or with any act concerned with their importation before 25 July 2021; and the prosecution does not say that the defendant arranged for the drugs to be brought into Hong Kong, or was responsible for any act in connection with them before 25 July when they arrived in Hong Kong.  Rather, it is the prosecution’s case that after the drugs arrived, the defendant knowingly dealt in or with those drugs by arranging their deliveries.  

3.In other words, the prosecution only relies on conduct after 25 July 2021, namely the arrangement made by the defendant to collect the containers from Evolve Logistics Limited. 

4.Regarding the personal background of the defendant, at the time of his arrest, he was 26. He is now 31 years of age.  He has been living with his parents, his elder sister and younger brother in Mai Po Village from birth, although he was, strictly speaking, born in Shenzhen.  

5.Growing up, he went to school in Hong Kong up to Secondary Form 6.  Thereafter, he went to the Netherlands to study in a university, although he only managed to complete six months there because, as he said in evidence, he found it boring.  Thereafter, he came back to Hong Kong and worked in a logistic company as a clerk for six months, and after that, he worked in Centaline Property Agency in Yuen Long for a year, and then at another estate agency for another year.  Thereafter, he started his own estate agency with his younger brother after the latter graduated from university, and that was in May 2021, a few months before his arrest.  

6.In Mai Po Village, where he lived, it was a closely knit community.  His father was the head of village of Ho Sheung Heung, as emerged from the evidence, and he has good relationship with his parents and other members of his family.  

7.During the course of his evidence, he revealed that he did not want for anything since his childhood, and I should also pause to note the important fact that he has got a clear record.  In other words, he comes from a good family, and as submitted by Ms Draycott SC, his conviction and the subsequent sentence he is going to receive will obviously be a savage blow to his family.  

8.The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.  The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band (or bracket) applicable to the quantity of drug concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes.  It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant.  The fourth step is to consider the aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”.  The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced sentence”. 

9.Regarding Step 1 to Step 3, the narcotic content of the dangerous drugs involved is 79.335 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 15.80 kilogrammes of ketamine.  In HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, at paragraph 66, the Court of Appeal held that for a quantity between 15 kilogrammes and 30 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’ (methamphetamine hydrochloride) the applicable tariff band is that of 27 to 30 years’ imprisonment.  Above 30 kilogrammes, the sentence will fall within the discretion of the judge.  However, one has to bear in mind the “practical and realistic” ceiling of 35 years’ imprisonment for this type of offence (paragraph 62).  

10.In view of the stance of the prosecution outlined above, in particular, that the defendant was not concerned with the importation of the drugs, I am prepared not to enhance the starting point for the international element in this case.  However, in the present case, bearing in mind that an additional quantity of 15.80 kilogrammes of ketamine is involved, I am of the view that the starting point for sentence should be 32 years’ imprisonment.  

11.Step 4, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the starting point.  

12.Fifth, I consider that there is no mitigating factor justifying a downward adjustment from the starting point. 

13.Finally, I consider that a sentence of 32 years’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of the defendant, bearing in mind the large quantity of dangerous drugs that were brought into Hong Kong.  

14.The defendant is accordingly sentenced to 32 years’ imprisonment. 

Mr Ng Wing-kit, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Ms Charlotte Draycott, SC and Mr Benson Tsoi, SC leading Mr Raymond Chui and Ms Kathy Sze, instructed by Wat & Co, for the accused