COURT: Defendant, you pleaded guilty before a magistrate on 29 January 2026 to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs. As result of your plea of guilty, you were committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
In the charge, you admitted that on 1 June 2023, at the Ground Floor at No. 263, Mong Tseng Tsuen, Deep Bay, Lau Fau San, Yuen Long, you together with other unknown persons unlawfully trafficked in 14,759.21 grammes of a mixture containing 11,588.72 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.
I turn now to the facts of this case. The Summary of Facts dated 26 January 2026 and the amended summary of today’s date, 27 May 2026, is admitted by you, the defendant, as correct.
In the small hours of 1 June 2023, police officers mounted an anti-narcotics operation at the village house situated at the address in the charge sheet. At about 0401 hours on 1 June, police officers conducted a raid on the house and found the defendant inside. The defendant struggled but was eventually subdued by the police.
On the strength of a search warrant and in the presence of the defendant, the police conducted a search of the premises and found an electronic scale, a pile of resealable plastic bags, three mobile phones and the quantity of drugs as stated in the charge. They were found in the defendant’s bedroom. The drugs were found in the following packaging:
(1) 12 transparent plastic bags containing a total of 8.38 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 6.48 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride, this I shall refer to as Exhibit E1.
(2) Five packets containing a total of 2.08 kilogrammes of a mixture in the form of six blocks containing 1.72 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride.
(3) 25 boxes containing a total of 600 pieces of cookies, that is 24 cookies per box, containing a total of 600 plastic packets, that is one packet per each cookie, containing a total of 4,299.21 grammes of a mixture containing 3,388.72 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, that is Exhibit E3. Sorry, the five packets was Exhibit E2.
At about 4.30 am, the defendant was arrested with the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs. Under caution, the defendant stated that he had obtained the white powder in Yuen Long on the instructions of a friend and that he would receive $5,000 per kilogramme for delivering the drugs to others. The defendant also stated that he struggled when the police raided the premises because he had stored a large quantity of the white powder in the premises.
At about 0756 hours, the police officers conducted a search of the defendant’s Tesla vehicle in the presence of the defendant and found the white powder in the premises. The defendant found cash in the sum of $46,250.
In the subsequent video-recorded interview conducted on the same day, the defendant stated under caution that the white powder mentioned by him under caution referred to Number 4 heroin. The drugs had been given to him by his friend called Man Chai. He was instructed by Man Chai to collect the drugs and store them at his residence and await further instructions. He would receive $5,000 for selling each kilogramme of heroin.
The defendant said he had collected part of the drugs, that is E3, on 31 May 2023 at about 2.30 pm and part of the drugs E1 and E2 shortly after midnight on 1 June 2023. He was instructed to collect the drugs by an unknown male who claimed to be referred by his friend Man Chai from a roadside in Fung Kam Street in Yuen Long. He then brought the drugs back to the village house and stored them in his bedroom. He had not received any payment from either the unknown male caller or Man Chai.
Upon forensic examination, the defendant’s DNA was found on the surface of the packaging of Exhibit 1. In one of the defendant’s mobile phone, photos capturing packets of heroin were found.
The estimated street value of the drugs seized was $14,759,210.
I turn now to the background and mitigation. Mr Paul Po-sang Leung, counsel, has submitted written mitigation on behalf of the defendant. Enclosed with the submissions are seven letters of mitigation and accompanying documents. The defendant is aged 38 and single but engaged to be married. He was born in Hong Kong and studied up to Form 1.
He has three previous convictions, two of them are similar to the present charge. In 2012, he was sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment and in 2016, he was sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment for these offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs.
The defendant worked as a part-time kitchen helper and cook at the time of arrest, earning approximately $20,000 per month. He is the sole breadwinner for the family. Previously, the defendant sustained fracture of his right orbital bone and underwent orbital bone reconstruction surgery and is now fully recovered.
Prior to his remand, the defendant lived with his 69-year-old retired father and 70-year-old mother, who is a housewife. The defendant has a 40-year-old elder sister who is working as a salesperson and is living with her husband. His sister suffers from depression and anxiety. The defendant also needed to financially support his almost 100-year-old grandmother who is living with her relatives in mainland China. The family now, having no support from the defendant, receives CSSA for both parents and disability for the elder sister in the sum of around $12,000 per month.
I am informed by Mr Leung that the defendant is equipping himself in prison by learning English as he is planning to work as a bilingual taxi driver or in a restaurant again after his release.
I turn now to the background of the case. Prior to this incident, the defendant was planning for his marriage. He was striving to make more money for organisation of a new family.
In 2022, the defendant made friends with a male nicknamed Man Chai in a pub through his friend’s referral. They met up in pubs and chatted occasionally afterwards. In early 2023, the defendant met up with Man Chai in a pub in Yuen Long. The defendant told Man Chai that he wished to seek for a job referral in order to earn some more money. Man Chai suggested the defendant engage in drug trafficking in order to make quick money. The defendant claims without thinking about the risks or consequences the defendant accepted the deal offered. Man Chai asked the defendant to wait for the instructions by way of phone calls.
Later, the defendant received an anonymous call instructing him to collect the drugs in question and store them in his abode pending for instructions for delivery. The defendant complied and as a result committed the present offence.
I turn now to the mitigation letters. I have taken into account the letters written by the defendant, his parents, his elder sister, his fiancée and his former employer. The defendant said he is remorseful for his misdeeds and promised to turn over a new leaf.
His family members and fiancée have stated the defendant is a responsible and caring person and despite his constraints and pressure from his responsibilities to the family, he would still nevertheless volunteer for charities. His former employer praises the defendant for his diligent and responsible attitude and has promised to hire him again at the restaurant after his release.
I turn now to sentence. The approach to sentencing in drug trafficking cases are the ones laid out 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 band applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. The revised tariff case for the drugs heroin, cocaine, and ‘Ice’ is set out in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKCA 234. Pursuant to the tariff, where an amount trafficked is 11,588.72 grammes, that falls within the bracket of between 5,000 and 15,000 grammes attracting a starting point of between 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment. Here, the amount by itself would attract a starting point of 25 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.
The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence. In this case, the defendant was recruited to collect, store and deliver the drugs as instructed. He had had these drugs in his possession for about a day. In the circumstances, the defendant was a courier and storekeeper.
The third step is to identify where in the relevant band the defendant came, bearing in mind that it might be necessary to go outside the band whether above or below given the circumstance of the offence and role of the defendant. Taking into account this third band of where in the guidelines the defendant should lie, I consider that an appropriate starting point should remain at 25 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.
The fourth step is a consideration of any aggravating factors. The aggravating factor in this case is that the defendant has two previous similar criminal records. As the defendant’s last conviction was some 10 years ago and although his counsel Mr Leung had asked this court to ignore these previous similar convictions as they were so long ago, I take note of that. However, in the circumstances, in view of the convictions being some 10 years ago, I will only enhance the sentence by 1 month.
The fifth step is to consider all mitigating factors bearing in mind in this particular branch of sentencing, personal circumstances will generally count for little.
Defendant, the most significant mitigating factor is your plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity and for that you will benefit from a one-third discount to your sentence. The starting point being 26 years’ imprisonment, that sentence shall be reduced to 17 years and 4 months’ imprisonment to which you shall so serve.
In observing the sixth step, I have observed the overall sentence passed and I am satisfied that it is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
