HKSAR v. Go Ho Pan and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCCC 310/2024 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 14 April 2026.
1. The 1st and 2nd defendants pleaded guilty to the following charges, and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 23 September 2024. The statement of offence and particulars of offence of the charges are stated as follows:
Cites 8 cases
|
HCCC 310/2024 [2026] HKCFI 3411 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 310 OF 2024 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.The 1st and 2nd defendants pleaded guilty to the following charges, and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 23 September 2024. The statement of offence and particulars of offence of the charges are stated as follows:
2.The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, both the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant have confirmed their plea and their agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel. 3.The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendants provides, inter alia, as follows. Acting on information regarding a dangerous drug case, at around 1852 hours on 22 February 2023, police officers saw the 1st defendant alighting from a private vehicle with registration number XD7328 (“XD7328”) parked outside The Star, No 18 Yip Shing Street, New Territories, Hong Kong and intercepted him. 4.Upon search of the cross-body bag the 1st defendant was carrying, the following items were found:
5.The 1st defendant was immediately arrested and cautioned for trafficking in dangerous drugs. 6.At around 1856 hours, in the presence of the 1st defendant, XD7328 was searched. At the handle of the door of the driver’s seat, a tissue paper wrapping three packets of suspected dangerous drugs (Exhibit E2, subsequently certified to contain a total of 2 grammes of a solid containing 1.6 grammes of ketamine) were found. In addition, at the storage box on the driver’s door, a black metal box containing 50 packets of suspected dangerous drugs (Exhibit E3, subsequently certified to contain a total of 8.55 grammes of a solid containing 7.66 grammes of cocaine) were found. The 1st defendant was again arrested and cautioned for trafficking in dangerous drugs. 7.At around 1912 hours, the 1st defendant was taken to Room 1801 of The Star (“Room 1801”). A search warrant of Room 1801 was executed. The 1st defendant opened the door with a password. Inside Room 1801, the 2nd defendant, in pyjamas, was found inside the attic. 8.In the presence of both the 1st and 2nd defendants, Room 1801 was searched, and on the computer desk at the attic, a purple wooden box containing the following items was found:
9.The 1st defendant was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs. Upon caution, he said the dangerous drugs were for his own consumption. The 2nd defendant was also arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs. 10.On further search, the police found on two tables near the same computer two suspected inhaling devices (Exhibits E15 ad E16). Exhibit E15 was subsequently certified to contain 14 millilitres of a liquid, which, upon drying, was found to contain 1.94 grammes of a solid containing 1.44 grammes of methamphetamine; and Exhibit E16 was subsequently certified to contain 10 millilitres of a liquid, which, upon drying, was found to contain 0.12 grammes of a solid containing 0.09 grammes of methamphetamine. The 1st defendant was arrested for possession of apparatus. Under caution, the 1st defendant said, “The two ‘Ice’ bottles were only used by me.” 11.On further search, at a drawer near the attic, a plastic bag containing suspected cannabis (Exhibit 14) was found, which was subsequently certified to contain 208 grammes of cannabis in herbal form. The 1st defendant was arrested for E14. Under caution, the 1st defendant said, “The herbal cannabis was for my own consumption.” 12.In addition, inside a paper box on the table next to the computer, a black spoon and an electronic scale ware found. At the wooden rack near the computer, three packets containing many empty resealable plastic bags were found. 13.On 23 February 2023, one video-recorded interview was taken from the 1st defendant. 14.It is now confirmed by the Government Laboratory that the 2nd defendant’s DNA was found on Exhibit E9 to E12, E14 and E16. In particular, in Exhibit 16, the 2nd defendant’s DNA was found on the tip of the inhaling straw of the inhaling device. 15.The amount of dangerous drugs seized in this case are, in narcotic content, 21.2 grammes of cocaine, 1.6 grammes of ketamine, 32.24 grammes of ‘Ice’ and 214.71 grammes of cannabis in herbal form, with respective street value of $24,274, $838, $17,890 and $42,513. The total street value of all dangerous drugs seized is HK$85,515. 16.The 1st defendant now admits that he has, on 22 February 2023, outside The Star, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 5.1 grammes of a solid containing 4.75 grammes of cocaine. 17.The 1st defendant further admits that he has, on 22 February 2023, on a private vehicle bearing XD7328, outside The Star, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 2 grammes of a solid containing 1.6 grammes of ketamine and 8.55 grammes of a solid containing 7.66 grammes of cocaine. 18.The 1st defendant further admits that he has, on 22 February 2023, inside Flat 1801, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 9.13 grammes of a solid containing 8.79 grammes of cocaine, 30.84 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 30.71 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 214.71 grammes of cannabis in herbal form. 19.The 1st defendant further admits that he has, on 22 February 2023, inside Flat 1801, had in his possession a dangerous drug, namely 14 millilitres of a liquid, which, upon drying, was found to contain 1.94 grammes of a solid containing 1.44 grammes of methamphetamine. 20.The 1st and 2nd defendants now admit that they have, on 22 February 2023, inside Flat 1801, had in their possession a dangerous drug, namely 10 millilitres of liquid, which, upon drying, was found to contain 0.12 grammes of a solid containing 0.09 grammes of methamphetamine. 21.As to the personal background of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant was born in Hong Kong in August 1991 and is now 34 years of age. He lives alone in the address as stated in Charge 3 at a rent of $12,000 a month, while his family members, namely his father, mother and an elder sister, live in another place. He received education up to Secondary Form 5 and came out to join the workforce, first as an apprentice in air conditioning and later worked as a delivery worker and then a waiter. From 2019, he worked as a driver until the time he was arrested for this case. From 2021, he partnered with some of his friends to run a business of selling Bluetooth products. In 2021, he earned around $65,000 a month. He had a short marriage from 2018 to 2020 with no children. The 2nd defendant was his girlfriend at the material time, who would come over to the 1st defendant’s place and sleep over. 22.The 1st defendant became a drug addict in 2007 in taking the ‘Ice’ drug. I am told that around the end of 2022, he had to take around 2 grammes of ‘Ice’ per day, which cost him around $1,000 a day. Later in time, his business failed, partly because of the adverse effect of the COVID pandemic. The drug addiction and the rent became a great burden for him. In early 2023, when he was going to buy ‘Ice’ for consumption, he chatted with the drug dealer about his financial burden. The drug dealer then induced the 1st defendant to help deliver drugs for the drug dealer for a reward of $3,000 each time. The 1st defendant succumbed to the temptation and agreed. 23.Later, the drug dealer handed the 1st defendant the drugs, which, apart from some ‘Ice’ in Charge 3, are the subject matter of this case. The 1st defendant got instructions to deliver some of the drugs on 22 February 2023 (Charges 1 and 2), and was arrested. Later, when his home was searched, further drugs were also found, together with two inhaling devices (the subject matters of Charge 4 and Charge 5), which the 1st defendant used for consuming ‘Ice’. 24.I am further told that among the ‘Ice’ under Charge 3, only the plastic bag of 13 grammes was given by the drug dealer for delivery. The remaining 17.71 grammes in five separate plastic bags (0.27 grammes plus 2.68 grammes plus 0.32 grammes plus 8.01 grammes plus 6.43 grammes) were bought himself for his own consumption. 25.The 1st defendant has two previous convictions, neither of them are similar to the present offences. 26.I shall deal first with the sentence for the 1st defendant, and I shall deal first with the trafficking charges, namely Charge 1 to Charge 3. The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs 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 the 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 aggregating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial.” The fifth step is to have regard to any matter 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.” 27.Regarding the first step, the task is to identify the appropriate range applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. In the present case, the narcotic content of the total quantity of dangerous drugs seized were 30.71 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice,’ 21.20 grammes of cocaine, 1.60 grammes of ketamine, and 214.71 grammes of herbal cannabis. The total quantity of narcotic was 268.22 grammes of drugs. 28.In HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the guideline sentence for a quantity of 30.71 grammes of ‘Ice’ is around 8 years and 4.6 months’ imprisonment. For a quantity of 21.20 grammes of cocaine, the guideline sentence is around 5 years and 10.1 months’ imprisonment. In Secretary for Justice and Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, for a quantity of 1.60 grammes of ketamine, the guideline sentence is around 2 years and 1.6 months’ imprisonment. Finally, in HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329, for a quantity of 214.71 grammes of herbal cannabis, the guideline sentence is around 1.7 months’ imprisonment. 29.As four different kinds of drugs were involved with a combined weight of 268.22 grammes, in order to assist me in identifying the overall starting point of the offences, the “Absurdity Test”, “Ratio Test” and “Conversion Test”, as explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leung, CACC 318/2013 (Judgment dated 8 April 2014) have been conducted with the following results: Regarding the Absurdity Test, applying it to the 30.71 grammes of ‘Ice’, 21.20 grammes of cocaine and 1.60 grammes of ketamine, adding finally the 1.7 months for the herbal cannabis, the result is 10 years and 0.5 months’ imprisonment. Regarding the Conversion Test, applying it to the ‘Ice’, cocaine and ketamine, adding finally the 1.7 months for herbal cannabis, the result is 8 years and 11.9 months’ imprisonment. Regarding the Ratio Test, applying it to the ‘Ice’, cocaine and ketamine, adding finally the 1.7 months for herbal cannabis, the result is 9 years and 2.5 months’ imprisonment. 30.Having considered the above results in the round, and taking into account that more than one type of dangerous drug is involved, I consider that the starting point of 9 years and 3 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate in the present case. That is purely based on the quantity and types of drugs involved, before any consideration of the 1st defendant’s role in the offence. 31.Second, concerning the 1st defendant’s role and culpability, my assessment should be based upon the evidence before the court, whether by admission or by direct or circumstantial evidence: see Harry Jane Yusuph, supra, paragraphs 58 and 61. From the Summary of Facts as admitted by the 1st defendant, I accept that the 1st defendant was acting as a courier or storekeeper of the drugs. 32.Third, in view of my aforesaid finding of the 1st defendant’s role and culpability, I consider that a total sentence of 9 years and 3 months’ imprisonment would be the appropriate overall notional sentence after trial for Charge 1 to Charge 3. 33.Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating feature which would enhance the notional sentence after trial. In coming up to the figure of 9 years and 3 months above, I have already taken into account that more than one type of dangerous drugs are involved in the present case. 34.Fifth, I consider that there are two mitigating factors in the present case. The 1st defendant submits that a significant portion of the drugs was intended by him for his own consumption. As to this mitigating factor, the Court of Appeal has stated the following in HKSAR v Choi Chun Wo [2018] 5 HKLRD 717:
35.In the present case, I am prepared to accept that a significant proportion of the ‘Ice’ seized, ie 17.71 grammes out of 30.71 grammes, was for his own consumption. In all the circumstances of this case, I would discount the 1st defendant’s sentence for self-consumption by 10%. This would reduce his overall sentence to 8 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. 36.I consider that the only other mitigating factor which may reduce the 1st defendant’s sentence is his timely guilty plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount. Accordingly, the 1st defendant’s overall sentence on Charge 1 to Charge 3 is reduced to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 37.To achieve the totality of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, I sentence the 1st defendant as follows on Charge 1 to Charge 3:
38.I turn now to the sentence of the 1st defendant on Charge 4 and Charge 5. The quantity of drugs possessed was very small (respectively 1.44 grammes and 0.09 grammes of methamphetamine found in the two devices). For both Charge 4 and Charge 5, I would adopt the starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment, reducing them to 2 months each for the 1st defendant’s timely guilty plea, such sentences are to run concurrently with each other. 39.Taking into account the totality principle, I order that the 2-month concurrent sentences on Charge 4 and Charge 5 are to run wholly concurrently with the sentences on Charge 1 to Charge 3. In my view, for those small quantities of methamphetamine, it would not have made a material difference even if they were added to the quantity under Charge 1 to Charge 3 for trafficking. 40.Finally, I consider that an overall sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just, and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and in the circumstances of the 1st defendant. 41.I turn finally to the 2nd defendant’s sentence on Charge 5. The quantity of drug involved was minute (0.09 grammes of methamphetamine contained in the device). Further, and most importantly, the 2nd defendant had been remanded in custody between her arrest in this case and her acquittal by the jury in a trial on Charge 3 on 4 March 2026. 42.In those circumstances, I think the most appropriate way to sentence the 2nd defendant on Charge 5 is to impose a small fine, which I fix at $1,000. 43.Out of abundance of caution, insofar as it is necessary, I direct that the fine can be deducted from her bail money.
Mr Alain Sham, on fiat, for HKSAR Mr Chau Hing-pang, instructed by Ma Tang & Co, assigned by DLA, for the 1st accused Mr Simon Kwok Chi-long, instructed by Cheung, Yeung & Lee, Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the 2nd accused | ||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment