COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs before a magistrate and is now committed for sentence. On 19 October 2023, at around 2.16 am, the defendant was seen acting furtively and intercepted by the police at No 406 Shanghai Street.
Upon body search, a plastic bag containing 28.2 grammes of a solid containing 28 grammes of ‘Ice’ and a plastic bag with 0.08 grammes of a solid containing cocaine were found on the defendant.
The defendant was brought back to police station. And under caution, the defendant stated that as he owed a person named ‘Yip Chai’ HK$18,000, he delivered the drugs for him to repay his debt. Each delivery will be regarded as a repayment of HK$500 to HK$1,000.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant said he obtained the drugs at a place in Sheung Shui as instructed by Yip Chai. He borrowed the 18,000 from Yip Chai in September 2023 as he owed debt due to online
gambling. He started delivering drugs for Yip Chai since late September and had done it five to six times before he was arrested. He would deposit the drug proceeds into a bank account provided by Yip Chai. Yip Chai had threatened the defendant with the defendant’s family.
At around 7.14 pm, on the same day, the police escorted the defendant to his shack at DD 51 Lot 226 SE at Tin Ping Shan Tsuen, Sheung Shui. With the keys found on the defendant, the police gained access to the shack.
Upon search, nine plastic bags were found in the shack which contained a total of 7,651.4 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 7,648.2 grammes of ‘Ice’. Some paraphernalia, including electronic scales, resealable plastic bags, and sealing machine, were also found. The estimated street value of the drugs is over HK$3.2 million.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant said Yip Chai told him there was ‘Ice’ in the place, and Yip Chai said to him if the defendant failed to repay his debt, Yip Chai would harass the defendant’s family. Yip Chai had taken photos of where the defendant lived and the defendant was worried about what Yip Chai would do to him and his family. Yip Chai instructed the defendant to weigh the drugs with the electronic scales, and the defendant was instructed by Yip Chai to buy the scale and resealable plastic bags.
The defendant is now 19 years old. At the time of the offence, he was only 17. He studied up to Form 3 level and has a clear record. As submitted by Ms Ling, counsel for the defendant, the defendant has special educational needs, namely, dyslexic, but the defendant has got talent in playing basketball. He was once selected in the Northern Territories basketball team and was accepted by the vocational training college to study a diploma on fitness and sports studies. But unfortunately, the defendant quitted the course as the school was too far from his home.
According to Ms Ling, the defendant’s immediate family migrated from the mainland to Hong Kong to live with his grandmother in her public housing unit when the defendant was 11 years old. In 2022, the defendant’s family was allotted a public housing unit in Fanling, but unfortunately the defendant’s mother moved out with the defendant’s younger brother as she has separated from the defendant’s father.
In deciding the appropriate sentence for trafficking in ‘Ice’, I should follow the six-step approach as set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, and also to follow guidelines set out under the Court of Appeal case in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.
The total quantity of ‘Ice’ involved in the two charges in this case is 7,676.2 grammes. Under Huang Ruifang, for trafficking in 5,000 to 15,000 grammes of ‘Ice’, the appropriate starting point for sentence should be between 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment.
For consideration of the appropriate sentence, I agree with Ms Ling that this court should regard the two charges as a single occasion and consider the total quantity in arriving at the overall sentence. And I also accept that the traces of cocaine found on the defendant was the leftover of the defendant’s own consumption, and I will neglect the quantity of cocaine in considering the sentence in this case.
In the present case, I accept that the role of the defendant is a mere shopkeeper, acting wholly upon the instructions of Yip Chai. With the quantity of ‘Ice’ involved in this case, the appropriate starting point should be, as submitted by Ms Ling, 24 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. Taking into account the defendant’s guilty plea, the sentence should be reduced to 16 years and 6 months.
However, I accept that the defendant committed the offence because he was indebted and threatened by Yip Chai. The defendant was in a relatively young age. Although not extremely young, the defendant was in a vulnerable position. Yip Chai took advantage of his vulnerable position and used the defendant to traffic drugs.
As in the Court of Appeal case of SJ v Tang King Wa [2023] 2 HKLRD 1440, although the defendant cannot be treated as in an extremely young age that in itself a valid mitigating factor, the overall situation of the defendant can still be considered by the court in arriving at a just starting point for sentence. Given the circumstances under which the defendant had committed the offence, I am minded to give a substantial reduction to the defendant’s sentence.
In arriving at the above views, I also took into account the mitigation letters from the defendant himself and his mother, and also the information provided by his social worker, which all point to the fact that the defendant has been truly remorseful and has taken positive steps to reform himself.
In the circumstances, considering the circumstances under which the defendant had committed the offence, and the genuine remorse he manifested under the support of his family, I am of the view that an overall sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment is an appropriate one.
To arrive at this result, for Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment.
For Charge 2, the defendant is sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment.
The sentences of the two charges shall be served concurrently.
