COURT: Defendant, on 23 January 2026, you pleaded guilty before a magistrate at the Eastern Magistracy to two charges. You pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs in Charge 1, and possession of arms without a licence, contrary to section 13(1) and (2) of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, in Charge 2. As a result of your pleas of guilty, you were committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
In Charge 1, you admitted that on 29 August 2024, at the car park of Chun Yeung Estate, 28 Wong Chuk Yeung Street, Fo Tan, New Territories, you unlawfully trafficked in 19.81 grammes of a solid containing 15.02 grammes of cocaine, and 49.53 grammes of a solid containing 40.41 grammes of ketamine, which are dangerous drugs.
In relation to the 2nd charge, you admitted that on the same date, at the same location as Charge 1, you had in your possession arms, namely one spray canister containing nonivamide, otherwise known as pepper spray.
In respect of the facts of this case, defendant, you admitted the Summary of Facts, an Amended Summary of Facts, respectively dated 16 January 2026 and 12 May 2026, as correct.
I now turn to the facts in support of the two charges. They are as follows. Whilst the police were conducting an anti-narcotics operation on 29 August 2024 at the car park of Chun Yeung Estate, at about 8.37 am, you, the defendant, drove your white van, bearing registration number YU4739, into the offence location.
After you alighted from the vehicle, you were intercepted by the police. A body search was conducted, and two mobile phones, five car keys, and a total of HK$4,250 and renminbi $200 cash were found on your person. The police then escorted you back to your vehicle and asked you to open the door of the vehicle with one of the car keys.
Upon search of the vehicle, the police found the drugs as particularised in Charge 1 as follows. There were:
(1) 73 plastic bags containing a total of 19.81 grammes of a solid containing 15.02 grammes of cocaine,
(2) 85 plastic bags containing a total of 49.53 grammes of a solid containing 40.41 grammes of ketamine, and
(3) a spray canister containing nonivamide, that is pepper spray, and $1,000 cash. I shall refer to the pepper spray as the spray canister.
You were arrested and cautioned for trafficking in dangerous drugs, and under caution you admitted all the drugs found in the vehicle were for sale in order to earn some money, and the pepper spray in the canister was for self-defence.
In a subsequent cautioned video-recorded interview, you stated, inter alia, the following. You became unemployed in 2023 and began selling dangerous drugs to earn some money. You had been the registered owner of the vehicle for around four years. You placed the dangerous drugs inside the vehicle and used the vehicle to deliver the dangerous drugs. You were the only person who had the car keys of the vehicle.
You had obtained the drugs from an unknown person at a park in Tsuen Wan the day before you were arrested. The dangerous drugs cost you $30,000. You requested the seller to pack the different types of drugs for you. You mainly conducted the sale of the drugs via an online platform, and you sold around two to three pellets of cocaine for around $2,000.
You usually placed the drugs at specific locations in order for the clients to pick them up. You started selling drugs since about January 2024 and had sold drugs via the online platform about three to four times. You did not have the habit of consuming drugs. You claimed the pepper spray was given to you by your friend called Ah Keung, and that you had never used it.
The government chemist examined the spray canister and opined that:
(1) there was an operating button associated with a nozzle that was found at the top of the canister item;
(2) when the button was pressed down, a pale yellow liquid was discharged from the nozzle in the form of a jet; and
(3) the pale yellow liquid collected from the spray canister was found to contain nonivamide.
The estimated street value of the drugs was about $38,087 if the cocaine seized was all cocaine powder, or $44,664 if the cocaine seized was crack cocaine. The street value of all the ketamine seized was around $23,923. The street value of all the cocaine seized was $14,164 if the cocaine seized was cocaine powder, or $20,741 if the cocaine seized was crack cocaine.
I turn now to your background and mitigation. Your counsel, Ms Renee Cheng and Mr Deryk Yue, filed full written mitigation on your behalf. You are 42 years of age, born in Hong Kong, and have a clear record. This is, therefore, your first offence. You have received education up to secondary level Form 5. You had been working as a delivery driver from around 2016 to the end of 2023, early 2024, earning around $50,000 per month. Since early 2024, you had become unemployed.
You were divorced in 2025 whilst you were in remand in custody for the present case. You have a 7-year-old son who is now taken care of by your ex-wife. You have no siblings. Your father passed away due to illness in around 2017, and your mother is now around 70 years old and works as a cleaner. You have always been the main breadwinner of the family.
I am informed by your counsel that the present offence was committed by you out of financial hardship caused by your unemployment. Defendant, you have reflected on your misdeed, and you are determined to turn over a new leaf upon release and to work legally as a driver to take care of your loved ones, physically and financially, once you are released.
I now turn to sentence. The approach to sentencing in drug trafficking cases are the ones laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph, [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, and complemented in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho, [2024] HKCA 150. The application of the principle and steps are as follows.
The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the relevant guideline ban applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. The drugs concerned are 15.02 grammes of cocaine and 40.41 grammes of ketamine. The revised tariff for the drugs heroin and cocaine and ‘Ice’ is set out in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang, [2025] 2 HKCA 234.
The tariff case for the drugs ecstasy and ketamine is set out in the case of the Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. Pursuant to the tariff for the amount of 15.02 grammes of cocaine trafficked, that would fall within the bracket of 10 to 50 grammes and a sentence of between 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment, which would by itself, arithmetically speaking, attract a starting point of about 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
For the amount of 40.41 grammes of ketamine, that would fall within the bracket of 10 to 50 grammes, attracting a starting point of between 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment, which by itself, arithmetically speaking, would attract a starting point of about 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
In determining the appropriate starting point for the two types of drugs trafficked, I adopt the combined and conversion approach. The most potent and serious drug is the drug cocaine, even though the ketamine is larger in quantity. I shall therefore convert the ketamine to the drug cocaine.
The total amount of ketamine, being 40.41 grammes, with a starting point of 5 years 6 months, if converted to cocaine, that would be equivalent to approximately 17 grammes of cocaine. Therefore, the total amount of cocaine is 15.02 plus 17 grammes, which is 32.02 grammes of cocaine.
For the total quantity of cocaine trafficked at 32.02 grammes, that falls within the above same bracket of 10 to 50 grammes, attracting a starting point of 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment. The total of 32.02 grammes of cocaine itself would attract a starting point of about 6 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.
The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence. In the present case, on the facts as can be seen, the defendant had purchased the drugs for selling to others. He was therefore the actual trafficker of the drugs, selling them online.
The third step is to identify where in the relevant band the defendant comes. Taking into account the third band of where in the guideline the defendant should lie, bearing in mind the defendant’s above role as an actual trafficker, I consider that a starting point of 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.
The fourth step is a consideration of any aggravating factors. An aggravating factor is that the defendant was trafficking in two types of drugs. He had 158 individually packaged packets of drugs and, therefore, he had the ability to cater to a wider market. There is, however, no evidence to show that there was any combined use of any of the drugs to enhance its potency.
In light of the present aggravating factor, I enhance the sentence by one month, the notional starting point being 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
The fifth step is to consider all the mitigating factors, bearing in mind that in this particular branch of sentencing, personal circumstances would generally count for little. There are no personal mitigating factors in this case.
The most significant mitigating factor is the defendant’s plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity. He will therefore benefit from a one-third discount to his sentence. The starting point being 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment, for Charge 1, that term shall be reduced to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
I turn now to Charge 2. The defendant was in possession of arms without a licence in respect of Charge 2. There are no sentencing guidelines for this offence. In HKSAR v Chau Lap Pui, unreported, CACC 358 of 2006, the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a bottle of pepper spray without a licence amongst other charges.
The appellant claimed that he was given the bottle by a friend for his self-defence and he had never used it. The Court of Appeal considered that, in light of everything that they had heard, that a starting point of 6 months imprisonment would have been appropriate and reduced it to 4 months for the appellant’s guilty plea.
It is submitted by the defence counsel for the defendant, and is accepted by this court, that the defendant’s situation in the present case is similar to that in Chau Lap Pui, in that he was given the spray canister, he kept it for self-defence, and he never used the spray canister.
In light of the above circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment and reduce that term to one of 4 months’ imprisonment, giving him his full one-third discount as a result of his early plea of guilty at the first opportunity.
I turn now to consider the principle of totality. Charges 1 and 2 are separate and distinct offences. Taking into account all the circumstances, I order one month of the 4 months in Charge 2 to run consecutively to Charge 1, and the remainder of the term to run concurrent to Charge 1.
Defendant, you shall therefore be sentenced and serve 4 years and 7 months’ imprisonment for both Charges 1 and 2.
In respect of the sixth step, I have observed the overall sentence passed to ensure that it is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of these offences and the offender.
(Proceedings after 10.50 am not required)
Court rises – 10.53 am
12 May 2026
