COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and a charge of possession of a dangerous drug before the magistrate on 22 January 2026.
The 1st charge alleged that on 16 October 2023, at Flat C, 11th Floor, Block 7, City Point, in Tsuen Wan, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 341.9 grammes of a liquid containing 328.6 grammes of gamma-butyrolactone, in short GBL; 56.65 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 56.39 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, in short ‘Ice’; 0.22 grammes of a solid, 53 millilitres of a liquid containing 0.04 grammes of a solid containing methamphetamine; 88 tablets and two tablet fragments containing 0.69 grammes of methamphetamine; and 0.11 grammes of a solid and four tablets containing 0.53 grammes of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, MDMA, or ecstasy.
The 2nd charge alleges that on the same day, in the same location, the defendant had in his possession a dangerous drug, namely 70 millilitres of a liquid containing 0.08 grammes of a solid containing methamphetamine.
The defendant admitted to the Summary of Facts at the proceedings before the magistrate and was committed to this court for sentence.
Summary of facts
The facts giving rise to the offences are these. On 16 October 2023, a team of police officers mounted an anti-narcotics operation at the location the subject of the charge. At about 3.39 pm, the officers saw a deliveryman pressing the doorbell of the subject flat. When the door was opened, the police gained entry into the flat and conducted investigation therein. The defendant was the only person inside the flat at the material time. He started struggling and kept shouting that he needed to leave. He was then handcuffed, and in his presence the police searched the flat.
Upon search, the police found dangerous drugs at various locations inside the flat. There were found five glass bottles and two droppers containing 341.9 grammes of a liquid containing 328.6 grammes of GBL; 39 plastic bags, three glass bottles, and 15 glass tubes containing a total of 56.39 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 123 millilitres of a liquid and 90 tablets containing 0.69 grammes of methamphetamine; and three plastic bags containing 0.11 grammes of a solid and four tablets containing 0.53 grammes of MDMA or ecstasy.
The defendant’s DNA was found on one of the glass bottles seized inside the flat. The glass bottle was constructed in what was known as an ‘Ice’ bottle, which is a device apparently used for the consumption of ‘Ice’. This device contained 70 millilitres of a liquid which, upon drying, contained 0.08 grammes of methamphetamine. This forms the subject matter of the 2nd charge, the possession of a dangerous drug offence.
The defendant was the sole tenant, having rented the flat from a Madam Li on 30 June 2023 for a monthly rental of HK$15,300. He was also registered as the tenant of the flat according to the management office’s record.
The average retail price for ‘Ice’ in October 2023 was HK$421 per gramme, and that for ecstasy tablets was HK$63 per tablet. There was and is still no average retail price available for the drug GBL.
Taking into account the average retail prices that I have just mentioned, the ‘Ice’ and ecstasy tablet seized in respect of Charge 1 could have been sold at street level at a price to the tune of HK$24,000 for the ‘Ice’ and HK$252 for the ecstasy or MDMA.
Defendant’s background
The defendant was 31 years old at the time of the offences and he is now 34 years old. He is single. He was born in the mainland and he received education up to Form 6 in Hong Kong. He lived with his mother and sister in Tung Chung. He claimed that he was operating two online shops selling perfume and other goods before the offences, earning a monthly income of around $19,000 to $20,000.
The defendant has a total of three previous criminal convictions. He was convicted of possession of equipment fit for inhaling dangerous drugs as well as possession of Part 1 poison in 2018, for which he was sentenced to a total sentence of 3 months. In 2019, he was sentenced to 5 years and 2 months’ imprisonment for a trafficking in dangerous drug offence, which upon appeal was reduced to 4 years and 9 months. In 2024, he has a conviction for cruelty to animals, for which he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.
It is said that the defendant suffers from chronic shoulder pain and has a history of recurrent dislocation of his right shoulder. That is said to be a reason why he used drugs. He is a drug addict.
Mitigation
In mitigation, it was submitted on his behalf that the defendant was the sole breadwinner of his family before his arrest for the present case. He has a 55-year-old mother with heart disease and diabetes and a 19-year-old sister who is still studying in university. It is also said that his shoulder injury requires surgery, which could only be conducted upon his release from prison.
It was submitted on his behalf that 50 per cent of the ‘Ice’ seized in this case and all of the ecstasy, (MDMA) seized were for his own consumption for the purpose of alleviating his pain in his shoulder. In support, it was said that he had been tested for drugs by way of a urine test, and the report dated 19 October 2023 (which was three days after his arrest), confirmed that he had amphetamine, a derivative of ‘Ice’, and MDMA in his urine. It was also said that the defendant had the financial ability to purchase dangerous drugs for his own consumption. I will come back to this matter at a later time in my sentencing.
The defendant submitted three mitigation letters, one prepared by himself, the other by his mother, and by Deacon Peter Wong.
In his mitigation letter, he expressed deep remorse and wishes to be able to be released as early as possible so that he could fulfil his filial duty of looking after his mother. His mother wrote, asking for leniency, describing the defendant as a kind and filial son who had grown up in a single-parent family. And it was also said by his mother that the defendant had participated in voluntary work at school and had made donations to charity.
The mother wrote about the defendant’s setback at work, after which he became depressed, fell into bad company, and turned to drugs. Wanting to make quick money, he eventually ended up committing the present offences.
Deacon Peter Wong also asked for leniency for the defendant, whom he met during his visit to the Lai Chi Kok remand centre. He said the defendant was remorseful and was willing to make a change.
Sentencing
I shall first deal with the sentence for the 1st charge, the trafficking offence. I bear in mind the approach as set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as expounded in the case of Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186 and the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885.
In respect of the 1st charge, the total narcotic content involved was 328.6 grammes of GBL, 56.39 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 0.73 grammes of methamphetamine, and 0.53 grammes of ecstasy or MDMA.
Step 1, the applicable guideline tariff bands
For trafficking in 57.12 grammes of ‘Ice’, the total quantity being 56.39 grammes plus 0.73 grammes, which is the most potent type of drugs seized, the starting point would be between 7 and 11 years’ imprisonment after trial (see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.
For GBL, the starting point for sentence in up to 500 grammes are up to the discretion of the court (see HKSAR v Ko Wai Shing [2021] 5 HKLRD 724). And for up to 1 grammes of ecstasy or MDMA, the starting point falls within the range of up to 2 years within the discretion of the court (see SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1).
Step 2, defendant’s role and culpability
As to the defendant’s role and culpability, I find that he was more than merely a courier or storekeeper. There were present in the premises paraphernalia which could be used for repackaging drugs, as revealed in the photo album submitted by the prosecution. There were vacuum sealing machines, electronic scales, and different sizes of resealable plastic bags with markings. There were syringes, measuring cups, and a cocktail of drugs seized inside the flat, of which the defendant was the sole tenant. And it was said this morning that the GBL was for sharing with others, despite the claim that 50 per cent of the ‘Ice’ and all of the MDMA or ecstasy were for his own consumption.
In these circumstances, I consider that the defendant’s role was higher than that of a mere courier or storekeeper, which warrants an enhancement in the starting point for sentence on account of his heightened culpability.
Step 3, the relevant band within the guidelines
The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes, bearing in mind that it may in appropriate circumstances be necessary to go outside that band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offences and the role of the offender.
According to the tariff laid down in Huang Ruifang (No. 3), the starting point for trafficking in 57.12 grammes of ‘Ice’ would be around 10 years and 1 month’s imprisonment. And according to the tariffs set out in Ko Wai Shing and Hii Siew Cheng, the quantity of GBL involved, namely 328.6 grammes, would warrant a sentence of around 4 months’ imprisonment, whereas the quantity of ‘Ecstasy’ or MDMA, namely 0.53 grammes would warrant a sentence of around 1 year’s imprisonment.
If one adopts the individual approach by adding up the three sentences together, the total starting point would be 11 years and 5 months’ imprisonment, which may be said to be unfairly high and may not adequately reflect the justice of the case. Hence, I will adopt the combined approach, using ‘Ice’ as the base drug given its potency being the more serious amongst the three. This approach involves the upward adjustment from the starting point based on the base drug, taking into account the remaining drugs and the fact that there were more than one type of drugs involved in this case.
In determining the adjustment for the remaining drugs, I will examine the overall starting point by cross-checking the starting point to be identified for trafficking in 57.12 grammes of ‘Ice’, as explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013 and clarified by the Court of Appeal in the recent judgment of HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung.
In the latter case, the court held that in light of the structured approach set out in Herry Jane Yusuph and the revised sentencing guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No. 3), the absurdity and conversion tests no longer serve any useful or principled purpose as crosschecks. The ratio test, while conceptually straightforward and consistent with the differentiated guidelines for hard and soft drugs, is to be used only in that secondary role.
In my approach, the GBL seized will be disregarded in the calculation of the ratio test, given its significantly lower potency and the corresponding sentence. Even if there was a calculation performed to convert the GBL to either ‘Ice’ or ecstasy MDMA, the converted quantities would not, when the sentencing guidelines are applied, raise to any significant extent the mathematical starting point.
Step 4, aggravating factors
The fourth step is to consider whether there is the presence of any aggravating factor which aggravates the seriousness of the offending and warrants an increase in the appropriate sentence. Given the defendant’s role, as I find it as being more than a mere courier or storekeeper, there is justification for enhancing the base starting point of 10 years and 1 month’s imprisonment by 3 months to reflect his heightened culpability in this case, resulting in a sentence of 10 years and 4 months’ imprisonment before aggravation for the further aggravating feature that is present in this case, namely the presence of more than one type of drugs seized.
For that latter aggravating factor, I would enhance the sentence further by 6 months to reflect the fact that ecstasy, MDMA, and GBL were found in the flat forming the subject charge. This would bring the sentence to 10 years and 10 months’ imprisonment before discount for mitigating factors.
Using the ratio test as a cross-check, a figure of about 10 years and 1 month’s imprisonment would be yielded. Comparing that figure to the notional starting point of 10 years and 10 months’ imprisonment that I have just identified, I find the notional starting point to be appropriate as the ratio test does not take into account the defendant’s role and culpability, nor the aggravating feature of the involvement of multiple drugs.
The defendant has a previous drug-related conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs. The question is whether he is a persistent offender for whom additional deterrence is needed in order to protect the public from such a trafficker (see HKSAR v Tsoi Man Chun, CACC 414/2015). Given that the defendant has only one previous conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs for which he was sentenced in 2019, I am prepared to accept his counsel’s submission that the defendant falls short of the criteria of being treated as a persistent offender.
Considering all the relevant factors, I consider the notional starting point after trial should be one of 10 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, taking into account the applicable aggravating features.
Step 5, mitigating factors
It is submitted on the defendant’s behalf that a significant portion of the drugs seized the subject of Charge 1 were for the purpose of his own consumption. Ms Lai on the defendant’s behalf relied on the case of HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang [2012] 2 HKLRD 1121, in which the Court of Appeal stated that if all or a significant portion of the drugs seized were intended for the traffickers’ own consumption, then the person is entitled to a discount of between 10 per cent and 25 per cent from the basic starting point.
In the case of HKSAR v Liu Ming Sze [2017] 1 HKLRD 297, it is said that the sentencing court has a discretion to give a discount to reflect an element of self-consumption, even in cases not involving a significant amount being found to be for the purpose of self-consumption (see also HKSAR v Choi Chun Wo [2018] 5 HKLRD 717).
In HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau [2002] 1 HKLRD 69, in the court laid down a number of factors for determining whether to accept a mitigation that a portion of the drugs were for self-consumption. These factors include the quantity of drugs and their value; the general circumstances, including how the drugs were wrapped and how many wraps or packages were found; where the drugs have been discovered, whether at residential address, owned or rented in the traffickers’ own name or in someone else’s name or whether they were being carried in a public place; the presence of paraphernalia associated with the drugs, including on the one hand items used for packaging, weighing and diluting drugs, and on the other items which are used for the consumption of drugs; whether the defendant is an addict or is otherwise accepted to have been a habitual user of the drugs in question; the explanation given by the defendant upon arrest; the defendant’s general means and his ability to pay for his drugs otherwise than by trafficking in them; and the defendant’s criminal record, if any, in relation to previous drug offences.
Usually a court will be able to determine the issue from these factors without a Newton enquiry. It needs to bear in mind that possession of the drugs for self-consumption itself carries a term of imprisonment with possible enhancement for the latent risk that the drugs will be accessed by or distributed to others.
In the present case, I consider the following matters. Firstly, the defendant’s urine test report confirmed that he had been a user of the drugs ‘Ice’ and MDMA because of the presence of amphetamine and MDMA in his urine.
Secondly, the seizure of numerous glass bottles as well as the paraphernalia found inside the flat, which suggests that the drugs in question, be it ‘Ice’, MDMA or GBL (which admittedly was to be shared with others), could be used for consumption as well as for repackaging for further sharing or distribution.
Thirdly, as submitted by his counsel, the defendant had been suffering from chronic shoulder pain and it was said that he relied on drugs as a relief for such chronic shoulder pain.
Fourthly, the quantity of ‘Ice’ seized in question could have sustained the defendant’s consumption for a month or two months based on his assertion that he would use 50 per cent of the ‘Ice’’ for his own consumption. This is supported by the Court of Appeal’s observation at HKSAR v Lam Wai Sum, CACC 289/2015, that experienced users of ‘Ice’ may consume between 0.5 to 1 gramme of ‘Ice’ per day.
Fifthly, the defendant had been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs as well as drugs relating to self-consumption back in 2018 and 2019. I further take into account the submissions made on behalf of the defendant about his income and financial background.
Following the adjournment of this case, the police had conducted further investigation as to the assertion made by the defendant about his operation of the two online shops.
Considering the estimated street value of the drugs seized amounting to the tune of $24,500 as well as the documents in support of the defendant’s financial means, there is some basis to accept that the defendant could possess part of the drugs found in the flat for the purpose of his own consumption. However, I am not convinced that a significant portion of the drugs, namely 50 per cent of the ‘Ice’ and all the MDMA were for his own consumption. I am however prepared to accept that part of the drugs, albeit not a significant portion, were for his own consumption.
That being said, as held in HKSAR v Choi Chun Wo, when a less than significant proportion of drugs is accepted as being for the defendant’s own consumption, a sentencing court has a discretion to award a discount from the starting point taken for sentence to reflect this fact. I am prepared to discount 6 months from the starting point that I have just identified to reflect the fact that some, albeit not a significant portion, of the drugs found in the flat were for his own consumption. That would bring the sentence down to 10 years and 4 months.
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to the full one-third discount of sentence. Giving the full one-third discount, the sentence would be reduced to 6 years and 11 months.
In respect of the 2nd charge, the possession of dangerous drugs, given the quantity of ‘Ice’ involved in that count, I consider the appropriate starting point should be one of 6 months’ imprisonment. I would give the full one-third discount in respect of this 2nd charge of possession and will sentence him to 4 months’ imprisonment for the 2nd charge.
Considering the totality principle, I would order both sentences to be served wholly concurrently with each other.
The total sentence that I would sentence the defendant to is one of 6 years and 11 months. This would be fair, just, and balanced in the overall circumstances of this case and the defendant.
Now, defendant, you are sentenced to 6 years and 11 months’ imprisonment for the 1st count and 4 months’ imprisonment for the 2nd count. Both sentences are to be served wholly concurrently.
(Discussion re sentence)
COURT: Yes, defendant. You are sentenced to 6 years and 10 months for the 1st charge, and 4 months for the 2nd charge. Both sentences to run wholly concurrently with each other.
So at the end, the overall sentence in the end would be 6 years and 10 months in total. That would be the rounded down figure.
