COURT: These are the reasons for the sentence I am to impose. The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug and another count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. He admitted the Summary of Facts at the committal proceedings before the Eastern Magistrates’ Court on 9 February 2026, whereupon his case was committed to this court for sentence.
He appeared before me today for such purpose, having confirmed his plea to both counts of offences and his admission to the Summary of Facts at the proceedings before the magistrate. He is duly convicted as such.
Charge 1 alleges that on 22 May 2024, outside No. 29 Taikoo Shing Road, Quarry Bay, in Hong Kong, the defendant attempted to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely 4,882 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 4,878 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, known as ‘Ice’.
Charge 2 alleges that on the same day, at Flat H, 11th Floor, Tai Kut House, Quarry Bay, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 2,643.1 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2,642.1 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 225 grammes of a mixture containing 167 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.
The facts giving rise to the two offences are these. In the morning of 18 April 2024, Customs and Excise officers examined a lorry at the Inbound Cargo Examination Building of Shenzhen Bay Control Point. The lorry was carrying, amongst other things, a parcel which appeared to have been sent from the United States and declared to contain books addressed to a Ms Zhou, at Pengfeng International Logistics situated at an industrial building in Hong Kong.
Upon X-ray examination, the parcel was found to contain suspicious items, and when opened, was discovered to contain dangerous drugs ‘Ice’ which were concealed within one of the books. The officers thus seized the parcel.
The officers conducted later that afternoon a controlled delivery operation. An officer in disguise delivered the parcel to the stated address where he located Ms Zhou. Enquiries were made of Ms Zhou, and the officer was informed that Ms Zhou was at the time working for a logistics company called Xingkai, and that the delivery address and the recipient’s phone number belonged to her company. The officer was also told that when the consignment arrived, her company would collect them, inform the person or the company to which the consignment was addressed to, namely Pengfeng, and Pengfeng would then notify the relevant client for collection of the consignment.
At around 10.43 am on 22 May 2024, Pengfeng instructed Ms Zhou to arrange delivery of the parcel to 29 Taikoo Shing Road, Quarry Bay and provided a mobile phone as the contact number, it being 59143134. The recipient’s name was given as “Drink Tea”.
At around 2.37 pm on the same day, a customs officer posing as a delivery man of Xingkai called that number. The defendant was the person who answered the call, and he identified himself as “Drink Tea”, confirming that he had a parcel to be delivered to the address as stated. The defendant told the officer that he would be available to pick up the delivery at around 3.30 pm.
Shortly before 3.30 pm, the customs officer arrived outside the premises at 29 Taikoo Shing Road and called the number again. The defendant was the person who picked up the call again and said that he was “Drink Tea”. During the call, the defendant confirmed the officer’s position.
Right after the call, the officer saw the defendant walking towards him. The defendant identified himself to be the person “Drink Tea” and asked if the officer was the delivery man from Xingkai. The officer confirmed and alighted the vehicle. He walked to the pavement outside No. 29 Taikoo Shing Road with the defendant and asked the defendant for his telephone number, to which the defendant replied by giving that exact telephone number. The officer then handed to the defendant a delivery sheet and asked the defendant to sign thereon after the defendant had verified the information on the delivery sheet. Accordingly, the defendant signed and received the parcel from the customs officer in disguise.
Having taken the parcel, the defendant boarded a taxi outside Taikoo Shing Road, and he was followed by customs officers throughout the entire journey. These facts form the basis of Charge 1 (attempting to traffic in dangerous drugs).
In respect of Charge 2, the facts are these. At around 3.34 pm, followed by the customs officers, the defendant arrived at Tai Kut House in Quarry Bay. He entered Flat H on the 11th floor of the building, carrying the parcel with him. Customs officers laid ambush in the vicinity.
At around 3.50 pm - that was shortly after his arrival back to the flat - the defendant was seen leaving Flat H furtively and walking towards King’s Road. Customs officers approached him and intercepted him, but the defendant struggled and ran off. The officers gave chase and finally stopped the defendant in the vicinity.
The defendant was then brought into a government vehicle and arrested for drug-trafficking offence. Under caution, the defendant admitted that the parcel he had received was still inside Flat H, that he knew it contained ‘Ice’ and that he would sell the drugs for money. He further admitted having received $10,000 to $20,000 for collecting the parcel. He admitted he was the only resident of the flat in question.
The customs officers seized from the defendant two keys and three mobile phones. The defendant was then escorted upstairs to the flat. Using the keys found on the defendant, the officers gained entry into the flat.
A search was conducted and the following items were found by the officers: (1) the parcel in question which was opened; (2) two sealers; (3) an electronic scale; (4) a plastic bag containing a quantity of empty plastic bags; (5) a plastic bag containing eight plastic bags containing a total of 113 grammes of a mixture containing 83.9 grammes of heroin; (6) a portable insulated refrigerator containing 95 plastic bags, including eight bundles of 10 plastic bags containing a total of 1,072 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1,071 grammes of ‘Ice’, 10 plastic bags containing a total of 136 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 136 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (‘Ice’), and five plastic bags containing a total of 67.1 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 67.1 grammes of ‘Ice’; (7) a plastic bag containing four plastic bags containing a total of 112 grammes of a mixture containing 83.1 grammes of heroin;
(8) a plastic bag containing 50 plastic bags, namely four bundles of 10 plastic bags, each containing a total of 274 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 274 grammes of ‘Ice’, and 10 plastic bags containing a total of 272 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 272 grammes of ‘Ice’.
In summary, the drugs found inside the flat comprised a total of 225 grammes of a solid containing 167 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 2,643.1 grammes of a solid containing 2,642.1 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Under caution, the defendant admitted that the parcel found in the flat was the same parcel he had collected at Taikoo Shing Road, which contained ‘Ice’. He admitted that the portable insulated refrigerator contained ‘Ice’ and that other plastic bags containing ‘Ice’ and “sei jai” (No. 4 heroin). He also admitted that the drugs belonged to him and he sold them for money. He said the electronic scale and the quantity of plastic bags found were for packaging of drugs.
The mobile phones seized from the defendant were also examined. Messages found in the phones revealed that between 16 and 21 May 2024, there were messages with photographs between the defendant and an unknown contact (“A”) discussing the packaging and delivery of drugs. The messages also revealed that between 21 and 22 May 2024, that unknown person “A” passed a contact of another unknown person (“B”) to the defendant, and there were discussions as to the collection of the parcel. There were also discussions between the defendant and the other unknown person, “B”, about the collection of the parcel (with photographs of the parcel in question sent).
In the month of May 2024, the average retail price of methamphetamine (‘Ice’) was HK$551 per gramme whereas the average retail price of heroin was HK$756 per gramme. Accordingly, the drugs seized could have been sold at street level for a sum of approximately HK$4.3 million.
The defendant admits and accepts that at the material time of Charge 1, he knowingly attempted to gain possession of the drugs that were originally placed in the parcel for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. He also admits and accepts that at the material time of Charge 2, he knowingly possessed the drugs found in the flat for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
The Defendant’s Background
The defendant has four previous criminal convictions, two of which relate to possession of dangerous drugs, for which he was sentenced on 12 October 2018 to 15 months’ probation, and on 25 March 2024 to 4 months’ imprisonment suspended for 3 years, respectively. The other two convictions were from over 19 years ago, which are unrelated to the present offences. In other words, the defendant committed the present offences during the currency of the suspended sentence imposed on him for his last conviction on 25 March 2024.
The defendant was born on 28 March 1994. He was 30 years old at the time of the offence and is now aged 32 years. He received education up to secondary Form 2 level. He has a 75-year-old father who is retired, a 53-year-old mother who is working as a security guard, and a 36-year-old elder brother who works as an event organiser. It is said on his behalf in mitigation that the defendant had been living with his girlfriend in a rented apartment in Tseung Kwan O since 2021.
I am told that the defendant had been addicted to cocaine since 2022 and that it was his addiction that led him to his debt and eventually his commission of the present offences.
In mitigation, it was said on behalf of the defendant that he merely acted as a courier, and it was urged upon me to adopt the lowest starting point within the range, having regard to the defendant’s minor role in the present case. Ms Lai also submitted on behalf of the defendant that there is insufficient evidential basis to come to a finding that the defendant either knew or must have known the cartons or the parcel was sent from the United States. And it is on this basis that Ms Lai urged me not to aggravate the sentence on account of a presence of international element.
The court has also received mitigation letters written by the defendant and his family: his mother, his father and elder brother. In his own mitigation letter, the defendant expressed remorse, stating that the present offences had made him reflect on his life and choices. He wished to be given leniency so that he could in due course repay his family and fulfil his responsibility to them after his time in prison.
The family also wrote and pleaded for leniency on the defendant’s behalf with reference to the defendant’s background and his financial situation. They also expressed their intention to provide continual support for the defendant.
Whilst the court would take into account matters stated in the letters as well as the mitigation concerning the defendant’s circumstances, but the relevance of these matters would be subsumed by the discount that the court will give him for his early plea of guilty. In any event, it is well established that in cases such as this type, personal circumstances will count for little unless they are really exceptional, which are not in the present case.
Sentencing
In sentencing the defendant for the two offences, I bear in mind the approach laid out in the case of Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as complemented by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186. That requires the court to approach sentencing by going through six steps.
The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band or bracket applicable to the quantity of drugs involved. In this regard, it is appropriate for the court to use the combined approach and look at the aggregate of the quantities of drugs seized in respect of both Charge 1 and Charge 2.
There are two types of drugs, and the total quantities of the dangerous drugs seized were 7,520.1 grammes of the narcotic ‘Ice’ (methamphetamine) and 167 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, the narcotics for the heroin. The relevant sentencing tariff for these two types of drugs is now contained in the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138. For a quantity of 7,520.1 grammes of ‘Ice’, the applicable sentencing bracket is 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment. And for a quantity of 167 grammes of heroin, the applicable bracket is 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment.
As two different kinds of drugs were involved, I consider it appropriate to use the combined approach which involves calculation of the applicable sentence for the more serious or most serious drugs in terms of potency and then to take into account significant quantities of other (less serious) drugs to arrive at an overall starting point. The court should then proceed to cross-check the overall starting point derived, using the absurdity test, ratio test and conversion test, as explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318 of 2013.
In the present case, those three tests yield roughly the same results, namely, 24 years and 9 months’ imprisonment as the overall starting point. Having considered the above tests and the results in the round, I consider the overall starting point appropriate for the present case is one of 24 years and 9 months based purely on the quantity and types of drugs involved before any consideration of the defendant’s role in the offence.
The second step is the assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on evidence before the court. From the Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant, I find that the defendant’s role was more than merely a courier or storekeeper. As he admitted himself, he knew that the parcel he collected contained ‘Ice’ and that he would sell the drugs for money, and for the mere collection of the parcel, he would receive from $10,000 to $20,000. Further, there were found in the flat packaging paraphernalia, including electronic scale, sealers and a large quantity of empty plastic bags.
Further examination of his mobile phone revealed discussions between him and two unknown persons concerning the activities relating to the packaging and delivery of the drugs as well as the collection of the parcel of drugs initially. In light of all these circumstances, I find that the defendant’s role to be higher than that of a mere courier or storekeeper, which will have to be reflected in the starting point for sentence that I am about to identify.
That brings me to the third step which is to identify where in the relevant band of guidelines the defendant comes. It may be necessary to go outside that band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant. The guidelines set out for trafficking in dangerous drugs and the tariff contained in that guideline are based upon the role of a defendant as a simple courier or storekeeper.
Given that I find that the defendant’s role and culpability to be higher than that of a mere courier or storekeeper, I consider that a total sentence of 25 years 3 months would be the appropriate overall “notional sentence after trial” for both offences in question. That would be an enhancement of 6 months from the initial starting point of 24 years 9 months identified, using the combined approach that I have mentioned earlier on.
The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which bear on the notional sentence after trial which I have just identified. Given the presence of more than one type of drugs in the present case, namely, ‘Ice’ and heroin, both of which are hard drugs, I will enhance the sentence by
3 months. That will bring the notional sentence after trial, namely, the starting point, to 25 years and 6 months; in other words, 306 months.
The fifth step is to have regard to any mitigating factors. As I have said, personal circumstances will count for little for these types of serious trafficking cases unless they are really exceptional. There are no such exceptional circumstances in the present case, and the only mitigating factor that is available is the defendant’s early and timely plea, for which I will give him the full one-third discount. Accordingly, the defendant’s overall sentence would be reduced to 204 months, namely, 17 years’ imprisonment.
I do bear in mind that the defendant is charged with the offence of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug in respect of Count 1. That means that he had not been successful in that trafficking. But the fact of the matter is that he did receive the parcel and that it was brought back to the flat in question and was opened by the time the officers gained entry and searched the flat.
In such circumstance, I consider that an overall sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment for both counts is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of both offences and those of the defendant himself. Taking into account totality principle and to achieve the overall sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment which I have identified, I would sentence the defendant for each of the two counts as follows.
In respect of the 1st charge, the sentence is 17 years’ imprisonment. In respect of the 2nd charge, the sentence is 14 years and 10 months’ imprisonment in light of the quantities of heroin and ‘Ice’ that are relevant to Charge 2. I would order both sentences to run wholly concurrently, thus resulting in the total sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment for both counts.
Lastly, there is one matter to be dealt with, that is, whether the court should activate the suspended sentence imposed on the defendant for his last criminal conviction of possession of dangerous drugs. He was sentenced for that last convicted offence to 4 months’ imprisonment suspended for 3 years on 25 March 2024. The offence date for that last conviction was, I am told, November 2023 which, it was submitted to me, was close to the present offences committed on 22 May 2024.
It was further said in mitigation by Ms Lai that the problem for these drug-related offences all stemmed from the defendant’s addiction to drugs since 2022. And in any event, the defendant would be facing a long term of imprisonment for the subject trafficking offences for which he is to be sentenced.
Ms Lai urged me not to activate the suspended sentence or, if I consider it appropriate to activate the suspended sentence, to make it concurrent or partly concurrent with the sentence I am to impose on the defendant for the present two trafficking offences.
Having considered all the circumstances both in relation to the present case and those of the last conviction for possession of dangerous drugs as opposed to trafficking, I would not exercise the suspended sentence on this occasion, and the sentence that I would impose on the defendant is one of 17 years’ imprisonment for both offences, the subject of the present case.
