COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate for two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He is now before me for sentence.
On 2 October 2024, at around 5.27 in the afternoon, the defendant was intercepted by the police at ground-floor lift lobby of Man Ying Building on No. 9-16 Man Yuen Street, Yau Ma Tei. Upon search on the defendant, one plastic bag containing 23.2 grammes of a solid containing 18 grammes of cocaine was found inside the pocket of the defendant’s pants. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he delivered the drugs for selling.
The defendant was then escorted to Flat 12C on 17th floor of Man Ying Building, and the police gained entry to the premises with a bunch of keys found on the defendant. Upon search of the premises, different kinds of drugs were found, and later the drugs confirmed to be a total of 17.3 grammes of a solid containing 12.9 grammes of cocaine, 946.27 grammes of a mixture containing 775.92 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, 22 grammes of a mixture containing 10.6 grammes of a solid containing 8.99 grammes of ketamine, and also 930 tablets containing 12.64 grammes of midazolam.
Some paraphernalia were also found inside the premises, including a large quantity of resealable plastic bags and plastic wrappings. Under caution, the defendant admitted he was selling the drugs to earn quick money.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant said a person named Ah Fu instructed him to collect drugs and to store and repack the drugs in the premises. He would wait for Ah Fu’s instruction to deliver drugs to places usually at Man Yuen Building. Ah Fu promised to pay him a few hundred dollars as reward, but no payment has been made yet. He rented the premises about two years ago.
The defendant is now 53 years old. He was born in Guangzhou and came to Hong Kong for family reunion in 1988 when he was 16. He received education up to Primary 3 level in the mainland. He worked at various industries after his arrival to Hong Kong, and before his arrest, he was working as a part-time waiter.
He has seven previous criminal convictions, including four trafficking in dangerous drugs. His last conviction on trafficking in dangerous drugs was in 2002, for which he was sentenced to 13 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
In consideration of sentence, this court is to adopt the six-steps approach set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and follow the guidelines set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.
Charge 2 involved four different kinds of drugs. Ms Chan, counsel for the defendant, has set out in her written submission, applying the ratio test, adopting the guidelines in respect of the relevant drugs in Charge 2 and also the overall quantity for both charges. Ms Chan submitted that the combined approach should be adopted for sentencing in this case, and as submitted by Ms Chan, following the recent Court of Appeal case, HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885, it would be sufficient to cross-check the result by way of the ratio test only.
I am not minded to set out in detail the results arrived at by Ms Chan. I agree with Ms Chan that the combined approach should be adopted for sentencing in this matter. Applying the relevant guidelines, the appropriate starting point for sentencing for Charge 1, in my judgment, is 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment; and for Charge 2, 17 years’ imprisonment. And the appropriate starting point, taking into account the overall quantity, shall be 17 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
Regarding the role of the defendant, although the defendant rented the unit and used it for drug trafficking and repacking, I am not minded to take a higher starting point because of his role. In my view, the role of the defendant can properly be regarded as a courier or a storekeeper. Besides, the defendant has similar convictions, but as the last one was committed over 20 years ago, I am also not minded to treat it as an aggravating factor. However, several kinds of drugs are involved in this matter. For this, I would impose an enhancement of 3 months’ imprisonment to the starting point.
In the circumstances, for Charge 1, I adopt a starting point of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. And for Charge 2, I adopt a starting point of 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Apart from the defendant’s guilty plea, there is no other valid mitigating factor. For Charge 1, the sentence is therefore reduced to 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. For Charge 2, the sentence is reduced to 11 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. The sentence of the two charges shall run concurrently.
