HKSAR v. Luo Jin Hong

HCCC 385/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3794

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 385 OF 2025

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to the following four charges in the Magistracy and was committed, on 6 November 2025, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The defendant confirmed his guilty pleas and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and his convictions were duly recorded.

2.The four charges are as follows: -

(1) Charge 1: possession of dangerous drug[1], namely, 1.6 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.58 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (i.e. “ICE”) and 0.27 grammes of a solid containing 0.19 grammes of cocaine;

(2) Charge 2: trafficking in dangerous drugs[2], namely, 50.94 grammes of a crystalline solid and 9 milliliters of a liquid containing a total of 50.63 grammes of “ICE”, 7.38 grammes of a solid containing 6.11 grammes of ketamine; 4.74 grammes of a solid containing 2.92 grammes of cocaine, and 0.04 gramme of a liquid containing cannabinol.

(3) Charge 3: conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs, that between 1 January 2024 and 7th February 2024, both dates inclusive, the defendant conspired with other unknown persons to unlawfully traffic in dangerous drugs, namely, cocaine, ketamine and “ICE”;

(4) Charge 4: driving a motor vehicle with any concentration of Specified Illicit Drugs[3], that on 7th February 2024 and outside Tsuen Wan Police Station at No.23 Tsuen King Circuit, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, the defendant drove a private motor car displaying registration mark SP 8308 on a road while methamphetamine ("Ice'') and cocaine was present in his blood.

FACTS

3.The facts admitted can be summarized as follows.

4.At around 9:30 a.m. on 7 February 2024, the Defendant went into the Report Room of Tsuen Wan Police Station and turned himself to the police by telling them that his car (registration number SP 8308, “the Car”) parked outside the station contained dangerous drugs.

5.The Police then searched the Defendant.  Upon search, the following dangerous drugs were found inside his right trousers pocket: -

(1) a resealable plastic bag containing a total of 1.6 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.58 grammes of “ICE” (Exhibit 1, El); and

(2) a resealable plastic bag containing 0.27 grammes of a solid containing 0.19 grammes of cocaine (Exhibit 2, E2).

6.The defendant was arrested and under caution, he admitted that the two packets of dangerous drugs were for his self-consumption. This is the subject of Charge 1. 

7.The defendant also had with him cash of HK$7,872.8 at the material time. 

8.At around 9:58 a.m. on the same day, the police searched the Car and found the following dangerous drugs and equipment: -

(1) On the left front passenger seat:

- 14 resealable plastic bags containing a total of 3.89 grammes of a solid containing 2.38 grammes of cocaine (Exhibit 3, E3)

(2) In the compartment between driver seat and front passenger seat:

- 5 resealable plastic bags containing a total of 7.38 grammes of a solid containing 6.11 grammes of ketamine (Exhibit 4, E4);

- A resealable plastic bag containing 0.26 grammes of a solid containing 0.18 grammes of cocaine (Exhibit 5, E5);

- A brown paper box containing an electronic cigarette containing 0.04 grammes of a liquid containing tetrahydrocannabinol (being a tetrahydro derivative of cannabinol);

(3) In the compartment of the front passenger seat:

- A pack of tissue containing a resealable plastic bag containing 1.64 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.63 grammes of “ICE” (Exhibit 6, E6);

(4) At the driver seat:

- 2 resealable plastic bags containing a total of 0.59 grammes of a solid containing 0.36 grammes of cocaine (Exhibit 7, E7);

(5) In the concealed compartment at the right side of the trunk:

- 2 glass tubes each with one end shaped as a bulb containing traces of methamphetamine;

- A glass bottle with two openings, one of the openings was inserted with a segment of plastic tube or plastic straw, containing 9 milliliters of a liquid containing traces of methamphetamine;

(6) In the hidden compartment under the driver seat:

- 2 resealable plastic bags containing a total of 27.3 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 27.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, “ICE” (Exhibit 8, E8);

- A blue plastic bag containing 13 resealable plastic bags containing a total of 22 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 21.8 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (Exhibit 9, E9).

9.The total drugs seized from the Car (E3-E9) and their contents are as particularized in Charge 2.  This is the subject of Charge 2.

10.The total estimated street value of E3-E9 are HKD$39,633.

11.Cash of HK$2,450 was also found in the Car.

12.The Defendant was further arrested. Under caution, he stated that he intended to sell the dangerous drugs seized in his car, and the equipment seized was for hisingestion of dangerous drugs.

13.At around 12:18 p.m. on the same day, a Rapid Oral Fluid Test was conducted on the Defendant, it detected cocaine and methamphetamine in his oral fluid.  The Defendant was thus further arrested for “Driving a motor vehicle with any concentrationof specified illicit drug”.  Under caution, D remained silent. 

14.The Defendant was sent to Yan Chai Hospital to obtain blood specimen for forensic examination at 2:40 p.m. on the same day.  The blood test confirmed that his blood specimen contained methamphetamine and cocaine.  This is the subject of Charge 4.

15.In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant said, inter alia, the following under caution: -

(1) He owed debts of about HK$200,000 due to gambling;

(2) He got acquainted with an unknown male @KK online, whoinstructed him to conduct delivery of dangerous drugs to earn quick money;

(3) He would receive the drugs from unknown person arranged by @KK and then deliver to different customers, following KK's instructions;

(4) He had obtained drugs (mainly cocaine, ketamine and “ICE”) from the same person for about 8-9 times a month (1-2 times per week).

(5) He would obtain around 10 to 20 packages of drugs each time with similar weight each time.

(6) He earned cash rewards between HK$150 and HK$250 per successful delivery;

(7) He had been involved in drug delivery for about a month without ever meeting @KK in person;

(8) The time of delivering drugs was between 8pm and 4am each day.

(9) He rented the Car in early January 2024 for delivering drugs;

(10) In the evening on 6 February 2024, he received about 58 grammes of “ICE” and 20 grammes of cocaine in Tai Po for delivery to others;

(11) In the morning of 7 February 2024, he was afraid of being caught by police and told @KK that he did not wish to traffic drugs anymore. However, @KK refused.

(12) While he was on the way to hand over the dangerous drugs to another person, he decided to turn himself in to Tsuen Wan police station.

16.Upon preliminary inspection of the two mobile phones of the Defendant with his consent, conversations in Telegram from an unknown user instructing him to deliver dangerous drugs to various locations over the territory were found.

17.Vehicle check revealed that the Defendant rented the Car on 5 January 2024 at the rent of HK$5,300 with HK$8,000 as deposit. The Defendant collected the Car on 6 January 2024. 

18.The CCTV of Tsuen Wan Police Station captured the Defendant parking the Car in the front of the report room at around 9:30 a.m. on the material day, then alighted the Car walking into the report room.

19.The Defendant now admits that at all material times: -

(1) He knowingly had in his possession dangerous drugs particularized in Charge 1;

(2) he knowingly possessed all subject dangerous drugs seized from the Car (E3-E9) as particularized in Charge 2, for the purpose of unlawful trafficking;

(3) he conspired with other unknown persons, to unlawfully traffic in dangerous drugs, namely cocaine, ketamine and methamphetamine hydrochloride between on or about l January 2024 and 7 February 2024, both dates inclusive;

(4) he drove a motor vehicle on the road while any concentration of a specified illicit drug, namely cocaine and methamphetamine, is present in his blood or urine.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

20.The defendant is of clear record in Hong Kong.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

21.Mr. Tommy Ho, counsel for the Defendant, provided the Court with very helpful and detailed written submissions for mitigation, for which the Court is grateful.

22.The Defendant is now 26 years old and single. He was born in Mainland China and came to Hong Kong in 2008. In Hong Kong, he received education up to Form 4.

23.Before he was arrested, he was living under the same roof with his father and younger brother. His father is now 58 years old.  His father has been suffering from diabetes and heart disease for about ten years. Therefore, his father is now unemployed.  His younger brother is now 26 years old and is a kitchen worker.

24.The Defendant has been the main bread winner of his family.  Before he was arrested, he was a casual construction worker earning about HK$1,800 per day, on average he worked about 20 days a month.

25.At the time of his arrest he was unemployed.  As it was a time when Hong Kong was recovering from the Covid 19 pandemic, work opportunities for casual construction workers were limited.  The Defendant had even tried to look for kitchen jobs but failed.  Later, his younger brother also lost his own job. Things went worse when the Defendant started togamble which then accumulated his debt.

26.It was under such circumstances the Defendant committed the present offences. He wanted to earn quick money, so he surfed the Internet to look for opportunities. He finally contacted an unknown man @KK who promised to give him jobs and the jobs that he gave was in fact drug trafficking.  In the process, the defendant was also persuaded to take drugs and soon became a drug addict himself.  In order to support his family and to satisfy his drug habits, he agreed to deliver more drugs for @KK.

27.The Defendant soon realized that making a living by delivering drugs was a downward road with no return. He regretted that he had embarked on such a journey. On the day of the offences, he decided to end his criminal activities once and for all. Therefore, even though he was aware that he had taken some drugs at the time, even though he realized that there were significant amounts of different dangerous drugs in his possession, he drove himself to Tsuen Wan Police Station and surrendered to thepolice.

28.The Defendant was said to be so remorseful that when he was interviewed by the police, he confessed to the police in the video recorded interview about his dealings with @KK.  As a result, he is now charged with one count of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs in addition to the charges of possession of dangerous drugs.

29.The mitigation letters from the defendant himself, his girlfriend, his father, his two sisters and uncle were all submitted to the court and have been duly considered.

SENTENCING

30.As there are four charges in this case, I shall deal with each in turn and address the issue of totality in the end.

CHARGE 1

31.This charge concerns the possession of1.58 grammes of “ICE” and 0.19 grammes of cocaine.

32.As stated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Mok Cho-tik [2001] 1 HKC 261, the starting point for mere possession of a quantity of dangerous drugs which a bona fide user would normally have in his possession should be in the range of 12 to 18 months. But that was not the “be all and end all” of the appropriate starting point. The quantity would be the main governing factor which would determine where the starting point would lie.

33.For Charge 1, the quantity is neither large no excessive, and concerns a situation of self-consumption with little “latent risk” of onward distribution of the dangerous drugs.  In that context, as held in HKSAR v Ramirez [2015] 1 HKLRD 966 “the mere fact of possession of two different types of dangerous drugs is not an aggravating factor in the commission of the offence.” This is to be contrasted with the trafficking offence that may treat this as an aggravating factor.

34.In all the circumstances, I consider a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment (being at the low end of the range provided for in Mok Cho-tik) to be appropriate for Charge 1 as the starting point. 

35.Taking into account the Defendant’s guilty plea that will result in 8 months’ imprisonment.  However, as submitted by Mr. Ho, given the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 as analysed below, the sentence for this charge of possession may pale into insignificance.

CHARGE 2

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

36.The six-step sentencing approach introduced by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[4], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[5], are applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff band

37.Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question.

38.For Charge 2, it concerns 4 types of dangerous drugs: -

(1) For the 50.63 grammes of “ICE” the sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3)[2025] 2 HKLRD 138 for “ICE” are applied and it would fall under the band of “10 - 70 g: 7 to 11 years imprisonment”;

(2) For the 6.11 grammes of ketamine, the sentencing guidelines as stated in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 are applied and they would fall under the band of “over 1g to 10g with 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment”.

(3) For the 2.92 grammes of cocaine, the sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3)[2025] 2 HKLRD 138 for cocaine are applied and it would fall under the lowest band of “up to 10 g with 2 to 5 years”;

(4) For the 0.04 grammes of a liquid containing cannabinol, the sentencing guidelines for cannabis as stated in HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329 are applied and it would fall under the lowest band of “under 2,000g with up to 16 months’ imprisonment”

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

39.The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant.  

40.The summary of facts show that the Defendant’s role was a mere courier.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

41.In determining the proper overall starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principle of trafficking in more than one type of drugs.

42.There were three means of cross‑checking the appropriateness of the overall starting point in the case of a trafficking involving different types of dangerous drugs.  The absurdity test, conversion test and the ratio test (see the cases of HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin & Anor[6] and HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong[7]). 

43.However, in the recent case of HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885 (handed down on 28 May 2026), the Court of Appeal provided new guidance on the use of these cross-checking tests when sentencing offenders involving a cocktail or combination of drugs.  Zervos JA (giving judgment of the Court) explained, inter alia, that the absurdity test provides for a calculation indicating the upper limit of the sentence (§36) and the conversion test is computationally complex and the outcomes may vary depending on the choice of base drug and the conversion rate used, giving rise to a risk of inconsistency and undue complication(§§37-38).  His Lordship concluded at §42 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 cross checks; 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.”

44.Therefore, I shall only use the ratio test for cross-checking in this case.

45.On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline bands, for Charge 2.

(1) 50.63 grammes of “ICE” would lead to 9 years and 8 month’s imprisonment;

(2) 6.11 grammes of ketamine would lead to around 3 years 1 month’s imprisonment;

(3) 2.92 grammes of cocaine would lead to around 2 years and 10 months’ imprisonment;

(4) 0.04 gramme of cannabiswould lead to less than 1 month’s imprisonment.

46.To achieve a reasonable and realistic sentence, I will adopt the combined approach which involve an upward adjustment from the starting point of the base drug: see HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817 and HKSAR v Islam SM Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146 §27.  I shall then cross-check whether the starting point to be adopted is fair and appropriate by using the ratio test as stated above.

47.In this case, ‘ICE’ was the more and most potent drug therefore it will be used as a base drug. 

48.I agree with Mr. Ho since the quantity of cannabinol is minute, it can be disregarded for this part of the sentencing exercise.

49.The starting point of trafficking 50.63 grammes of “ICE” is 9 years and 8 month’s imprisonment. I now have to decide what upward adjustment I should make for the Ketamine and cocaine.  As explained in Islam SM Majharul §27(3), to determine by how much this starting point should be increased to allow for the quantity of the other drug(s) is ultimately an exercise of sentencing discretion and should be done by:

(i) considering the quantity of the other drugs and the relevant sentence according to that drug’s sentencing guidelines and by reference to the starting point adopted for the base drug.

(ii) conducting an overall comparison of the sentencing guidelines of the two drugs and their related ranges of sentence;

(iii) examining the results of the ratio test, which yielded a result of 9 years and 9 months.

(iv) taking all these matters into account to calculate a reasonable and realistic increase to the starting point. I would increase the starting point of 9 years’ and 8 month’s imprisonment by 2 months imprisonment, resulting in 9 years and 9 months’ imprisonment as overall starting point at this step

Step 4: Aggravating factors

Two different types of dangerous drugs

50.Charge 2 involved the trafficking in more than two different types of dangerous drugs. 

51.In the case of HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong[8], the Court of Appeal stated the fact that the seizure of two or more types of dangerous drugs at the same time, even though separately packed and not in a prepared mixture, may lead to two possible aggravating features.  One being the ability of the trafficker to cater to a wider market, the other being the effect on users of combinations of dangerous drugs. 

52.As explained in Islam SM Majharul §27(4), after the determination of how much the starting point should be increased to allow for the quantity of the other drug(s).  The Court has to determine the level of enhancement to the starting point for the aggravating factor that the trafficking involved two or more serious dangerous drugs. I would enhance the starting point by 3 months on account of this factor.

53.Resulting in an overall starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

54.Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the strongest mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is his guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the sentence for Charge 2 to 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

55.For Charge 2, there is also a further mitigating factor of the defendant’s voluntary surrender to the police.  Indeed, not only did the defendant “surrender” in the sense of voluntarily reporting himself to the police for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  In addition to that, he drove the Car containing the dangerous drugs to the police station and informed the police that the drugs were in the Car.  Therefore, not only did he surrender himself, admit to the crime of trafficking, but he voluntarily brought the very evidence of his crime of drug trafficking to the police. 

56.As stated in HKSAR v Chow Tak Fuk (CACC 428/2004) para 7: -

“…surrender to the authorities is a mitigating feature but the extent of the mitigating effect is always a contextual question. Thus, for example, surrender by a person whose participation in an offence may not otherwise have come to light would be a significant mitigating factor indeed; much more so than surrender of an arrested person after he has absconded, and even in the latter case the circumstances behind thatsurrender will vary from case to case…”

57.For this factor, I will further reduce the sentence by 12 months. Resulting in a sentence of 5 years and 8 months for Charge 2.

Step 6: Totality

58.I shall conduct the overall totality assessment at the end of the reasons for sentence.  At this stage, I consider that the sentence imposed for charge 2 to be fair and balanced in all the circumstances.

CHARGE 3

59.This involves a conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, ketamine and “ICE”.

60.As explained by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ki Chun Pong [2019] 1 HKLRD 717 para 23: -

“In a conspiracy to traffic in an unspecified quantity of dangerous drugs, the sentencing court must do its best to arrive at a starting point based on inferences and assumptions properly derived from the particular facts in the case. Unless clear-cut, such inferences and assumptions would inevitablylean in favour of the defence.”

61.The sentencing judge must also give an assessment of the scale and extent ofthe conspiracy: see HKSAR v Leung King Hung [2024] 4 HKLRD 794.  The Court of Appeal held in that case that the six steps inHerry Jane Yusuph would assist judges in compartmentalizing thevarious factors relevant to sentence in such cases (para 52).

62.In HKSAR v Chung Ka Lun [2018] 4 HKLRD 229 para 39, the Court of Appeal referred to its decision in HKSAR v Chan Kam Loi, CACC 410/2012, in which the Court observed that in cases of inchoate offences such as conspiracy to traffic: -

“The evidence may not always allow of precise quantification but it may be possible to reach a view of the very least that was trafficked by recourse to inferences drawn from the evidence or assumptions based on the evidence. Such a course is permissible as long as the inferences and assumptions are based upon evidence and do not become mere speculation with no evidential foundation. Whether the evidence and the inferences that are drawn from it enable the Court to have recourse to the quantity based sentencing bands will inevitably vary from case to case. But sight should not be lost of the ultimate goal which is to make an accurate assessment of the gravity of the offence so as to enable the Court toimpose a just sentence.”

63.The Court of Appeal went on to say at para. 41: “When the evidence was not sufficient for the sentencing court to arrive at a precise quantification of the quantity of drugs involved, reasonable assumptions and allowances most favourableto the defendant should be made…”.  The Court further held that, in that case, it would be unrealistic to adopt a strictly arithmetic approach to a defendant's general and imprecise evidence as to the quantity of dangerous drugs used in theconspiracy.

64.Bearing these principles in mind, I now turn to the facts and admissions relevant to charge 3. 

65.The Defendant stated in his interview (as set out in the summary of facts) that: -

(1) “He would receive the drugs from unknown person arranged by @KK and then deliver to different customers) following KK's instructions”: 13(c) of Summary of Facts;

(2) "He had obtained drugs (mainly cocaine, ketamine and ICE) from the same person for about eight to nine times a month (one to two times per week): 13(d) of Summary of Facts;

(3) “He would obtain around 10 to 20 packages of drugs each time with similar weight each time”: 13(e) of Summary of Facts;

(4) He had been involved in drug delivery for about a month without ever meeting @KK in person: 13(g) of Summary of Facts;

(5) He rented the Car in early January 2024 for delivering drugs: 13(i) of Summary of Facts. As a matter of fact, the Car was rented on 5 January and only collected on 6 January 2024. The surrender and arrest took place on 7 February 2024 therefore it was indeed correct the duration of his trafficking was about 1 month.

(6) In the evening on 6 February 2024, he received about 58 grammes of “ICE” and 20 grammes of cocaine in Tai Po for delivery to others: 13(L) of Summary of Facts.

66.Based on the above information admitted by the Defendant and applying the legal principles stated above.  I provide the following analysis.

67.Firstly, as to the number of conspirators involved: there is the Defendant, the “online” character @KK who gives the Defendant instructions for the delivery, and the person who provides the drugs to the Defendant for the delivery.  As Mr. Ho rightly pointed out and was fairly accepted by Ms. Chong, there is no evidence whether the online character @KK was in fact also the same person providing drugs to the Defendant.  As the inference favourable to the Defence is to be drawn, on the evidence before me, the conspiracy may only consist of two people, including the defendant.  This in fact is reflected by the wording of the particulars of the charge by the use of the phrase “unknown person” in the singular form.

68.In terms of the duration of the conspiracy, it is from 1 January to 7 February 2024 as stated in the summary of facts, however in terms of the duration of the actual trafficking as stated by the Defendant, it was about one month.  This is supported by the fact that the Car was only collected by him on 6 January 2024.

69.In relation to the quantities of the drugs involved in the conspiracy, it is clearly relevant to analyse the dangerous drugs in charge 2 because that formed part of the conspiracy.      I set out the table prepared by Mr. Ho below found at para 48 of his written submissions, the contents of which were agreed by Ms. Chong: -

70.Thus there were altogether 38 packages of dangerous drugs, including 17 packages of cocaine (4.74 grammes), 5 packages of ketamine (7.38 grammes) and 16 packages of “ICE” (50.94 grammes).

71.In terms of percentage, within these 38 packages of dangerous drug, 45% was cocaine (17 packages), 13% was ketamine (5 packages), and42% (16 packages) was Ice.

72.The next step is to find the average quantities of each dangerous drug per package.  On average, each package of cocaine would have contained 0.28 grammes of solid (4.74 grammes divided by 17), each package of ketamine would have contained 1.47 grammes of solid (7.38 grammes divided by 5), and each package of ICE would have contained 3.18 grammes of solid (50.94 grammes divided by 16).

73.In terms of purity, the percentage of purity most favourable to the Defendant as shown in the table above should be adopted, namely, 61.01% for cocaine, 82.79% for ketamine and99.09% for Ice.

74.Applying the percentages of purity to the average weight of the solid drug per package, the average weights per package for each pure dangerous drug are as follows: 0.17 grammes of cocaine (0.28 grammes x 61.01%); 1.21 grammes of ketamine (1.47 grammes x 82.79%), and 3.16 grammesof Ice (3.18 grammes x 99.09%).

75.According to paragraphs 13(d) and 13(e) of the Summary of Facts, the Defendant received 10 to 20 packages each time for eight to nine times a month (1-2 times per week). There are about five and half weeks from 1 January to 7 February 2024, but I also take into account the fact that the Car (which was used to transport the drugs by the Defendant) was only collected on 6 January 2024.  Using the approach most favourable to the defendant, I make the assumption that the Defendant only obtained drugs on 8 occasions for delivery, the 8^th occasion being on 6February 2024.  I also assume in the Defendant’s favour that for the first 7 occasions, they each involved 10 packages of drugs (being the lowest in the range).

76.The Defendant’s admissions in relation to the cocaine and “ICE” collected on 6February 2024 is significant, that is because, as rightly pointed out by Ms. Chong for the Prosecution, even giving the benefit of doubt to the Defendant, by applying the percentages of purity most favorable to the Defence.  The cocaine and “ICE” which the Defendant claimed to have collected on 6 February 2024, far exceeded each of the previous occasions. 

77.The fact that the Defendant admitted to quite precise quantity of cocaine and ICE having been collected on 6 February 2024 cannot be disregarded in the sentencing exercise.

78.In the circumstances, I find that the quantity of drugs collected on 6 February 2024 represented an “outlier” to the average of the previous 7 occasions. The drugs that were found in the Car (i.e. the drugs the subject of Charge 2) represent the remaining portion of the drugs collected from 6 February 2024, which was fairly accepted by Ms. Chong.  Indeed, the number of “packages” of drugs involved in Charge 2 (being 38 packages in total) would already cover the upper limit of “10 to 20 packages” as stated by the Defendant.

79.For the previous seven occasions, it is therefore assumed that the Defendant received a total of 70 packages of dangerous drugs.  Adopting the calculations stated above, there were 31.5 packages of cocaine (70 x 45%); 9.1 packages of ketamine (70 x 13%), 29.4 packages of ICE (70 x 42%).

80.When the average purity of each dangerous drug per package is applied to the number of relevant packages, the results are as follows:

(1) 5.355 grammes of cocaine (0.17 grammes x 31.5 packages);

(2) 11.011 grammes of ketamine (1.21 grammes x 9.1 packages);

(3) 92.904 grammes of Ice(3.16 grammes x 29.4 packages).

81.For the drugs collected on 6 February 2024, I am most grateful to Ms. Chong’s computation which I shall adopt, applying the most favourable purity to the 20 grammes of solid containing cocaine and the 58 grammes of solid containing “ICE” would mean:

(1) 12.20 grammes of cocaine;

(2) 57.47 grammes of “ICE”.

82.The 6.11 grammes of ketamine found in the Car is added to the above as part of the drugs collected on 6February 2024.

83.The grand estimated total of drugs for the conspiracy charge would therefore result in:

(1) 17.555 grammes of cocaine (round up to 17.56g)

(2) 17.121 grammes of ketamine (round down to 17.12g)

(3) 150.374 grammes of ICE (round down to 150.37g)

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

84.The six-step sentencing approach of Herry Jane Yusuph[9], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[10], are then applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff band

85.Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question.

86.For Charge 3, it concerns three types of dangerous drugs: -

(1) For the 17.56 grammes of cocaine, the sentencing guidelines as updated in Huang Ruifang (No.3) for cocaine are applied and it would fall under the band of “10 - 50 grammes: 5 to 8 years”;

(2) For the17.12 grammes of ketamine, the sentencing guidelines as stated in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 are applied and they would fall under the band of “10 to 50 grammes - 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment;”

(3) For the 150.37 grammes of “ICE” the sentencing guidelines as updated in Huang Ruifang (No. 3) for “ICE” are applied and it would fall at under the band of “70 - 300 grammes: 11 to 15 years’ imprisonment”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

87.The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant in the conspiracy.

88.In doing so, I have also taken into account the fact that the conspiracy was not a “one-off” trafficking but lasted for over 1 month. 

89.On the evidence available, I find that the Defendant’s role in the conspiracy was a mere courier. 

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

90.In determining the proper overall starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principle of trafficking in more than one type of drugs. I shall adopt the combined approach and then use the ratio test for secondary cross-checking purposes.

91.On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline bands, for Charge 2

(1) 17.56 grammes of cocaine would lead to 5 years and 6 month’s imprisonment;

(2) 17.12 grammes of ketamine would lead to around 4 years and 4 month’s imprisonment;

(3) 150.37 grammes of “ICE” would lead to around 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment;

92.For this charge, ‘ICE’ would be the more and most potent drug therefore it will be used as a base drug.  The starting point of trafficking 147.37 grammes of “ICE” is 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.  Having considered the quantity of the other drugs and their relevant sentencing guidelines; having conducted an overall comparison of the range of sentences and examined the results of the ratio test, which yielded a result of 12 years and 4 months.  I would increase the starting point of 12 years and 4 months by 1 month’s imprisonment, resulting in 12 years 5 months’ imprisonment. 

Step 4: Aggravating factors

Two different types of dangerous drugs

93.Charge 3 involved a conspiracy to traffic in more than two different types of dangerous drugs.

94.I would enhance the starting point by 3 months on account of this factor.

95.Resulting in an overall starting point of 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

96.Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the strongest mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is her guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to at least the full one-third discount, which would have resulted in 8 years 5 months imprisonment.

97.However, as recognised by the Court, the fact that but for the admission of the defendant, the Prosecution would not have known the existence or details of the conspiracy is a mitigating factor.  This factor should be taken into account in sentencing.  It appears this can be done in a number of ways.

98.For example in HKSAR v Yung Chi-hang [2026] HKCFI 489 a further 5% discount was given for this factor; in HKSAR Gong Jiaming [2023] HKCFI 3132 and HKSAR v Siu Lap-fung [2023] HKCFI 791 – a further discount resulting in a total of 38.5% discount including guilty plea was given; in HKSAR v Yeung Siu Yan [2025] HKCFI 1364, HKSAR v Li Ka-kan [2024] HKCFI 2968 and HKSAR v Hong Tsz-ho [2024] HKCFI 1572 – the estimation of the drugs involved in the conspiracy were adjusted downwards to take into account this factor, following the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing para.41.  In HKSAR v Wong Tsz-hin [2026] HKCFI 3289 (although dealing with a conspiracy to manufacture drugs) a further 16 months discount was given in addition to the 1/3 reduction for guilty plea.  InHKSAR v Tong Ho-wan [2025] HKCFI 1033 the starting point was adjusted downwards to take into account this factor.

99.In the present case, this particular mitigation factor plays an even greater role than in other cases because he did not simply “admit” to a conspiracy.  The Defendant here voluntarily surrendered himself to the police, bringing with him a significant quantity of the drugs involved in the conspiracy charge, with the intention to giving them over to the police, and admitting to and gave details of the conspiracy in his interview – which otherwise the police would not have known.

100.For this factor I shall give a further discount of 12 months.

101.That brings the sentence for Charge 3 to 7 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

Step 6: Totality

102.At this stage, I consider that the sentence imposed for charge 3 to be fair and balanced in all the circumstances.

CHARGE 4

103.Charge 4 concerns the offence of drug driving. 

104.As explained in HKSAR v Poon Chi Keung [2025] HKCA 328 (an application for leave to appeal concerning a case of an applicant convicted of both drug trafficking and drug driving), the offence of driving a motor vehicle with any concentration of a specified illicit drug, contrary to section 39K(l) of the Road Traffic Ordinance may attract different maximum sentences depending on whether a person is convicted summarily or on indictment.  In terms of imprisonment, the maximum sentence upon summary conviction is 6 months and for conviction on indictment is 3 years.

105.In the present case, no traffic accident was caused and no allegation was made against the defendant in respect of his driving manner or for imperiling other road users.   The same observation of the Court of Appeal for Poon Chi Keung applies here in that had the defendant been separately convicted of the offence in the Magistrate’s Court, the maximum sentence would normally have been six months and a fine for a first-time offender.  In Poon Chi Keung, Macrae VP considered it reasonably arguable that the imposition of a starting point of 18 months imprisonment for this offence in addition to the drug trafficking charge faced by the applicant in that case was manifest excessive.  His Lordship also held to be reasonably arguable the overall totality in that case was manifestly excessive.

106.The additional (perhaps unique) feature in the present case is that the drug driving offence was closely related to the defendant’s voluntary surrender for charge 2, which then of course led to his admissions forming the basis of charge 3.  This feature will be considered later when I address the issue of totality.

107.For present purposes, I would impose a term of 3 months imprisonment for this offence as a starting point.  Giving the appropriate discount for the guilty plea, this results in a sentence of 2 months for Charge 4.

TOTALITY

108.I will now consider the issue of totality.

109.As stated in the analysis above, the drugs involved in the Charge 2 trafficking count are in fact part and parcel of the conspiracy to traffic charge under Charge 3.  Therefore I order that the sentence for charge 2 be served wholly concurrently with that of Charge 3.

110.For charge 1, given (i) the already lengthy sentence imposed for Charge 3; (ii) the temporal and locational proximity of the offences of charges 1 and 2; and (iii) charge 1 is closely related to charges 2 and 3 – I will order that the sentence for Charge 1 be served wholly concurrently with that of Charges 2 and 3.

111.For Charge 4, as fairly accepted by Mr. Ho, the nature of the charge is different from that of charges 1-3.  The sentence for drug driving would therefore normally warrant a consecutive element to that of the other charges.

112.As Macrae VP explained in HKSAR v Poon Chi Keung [2025] HKCA 328 (an application for leave to appeal concerning a case of an applicant convicted of both drug trafficking and drug driving): -

“…Whilst the underlying criminality of drug driving is that, having consumed a drug or been influenced by such consumption, the applicant nevertheless drives or attempts to drive on the road and therefore puts the safety and lives of other road users at risk, the fact that when he drives he is also in pursuance of atrafficking activity may give rise to a separate and distinct criminality.”(para 17)

113.The present case, however, has a distinguishing factor, which is the fact that the defendant drove the Car to the police station to surrender himself for the trafficking offences.  Therefore, although he was driving under the influence of drugs, he was not driving in pursuance of a trafficking activity, but for the purpose of surrendering himself.  As stated above, in doing so, it was fortunate that he did not cause any accidents. 

114.However, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Defendant’s conduct under charge 4 did give rise to separate criminality.  Indeed, by drug driving, the Defendant was putting other road users at risk.  The Court must therefore take a principled approach to this added criminality and reflect it in the total sentence with a consecutive element.

115.In the circumstances of this case, and taking into the already lengthy sentence imposed for charge 3, and the fact that charge 4 was closely related to the Defendant’s conduct of surrendering himself for Charges 2 and 3, I order that 1 month of Charge 4 be served consecutively with the sentence imposed for Charge 3 to reflect the additional criminality.

116.In my judgment, this is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the offence and offender for the reasons stated above.

FINAL SENTENCE

117.Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and 6 months.

Ms. Cherry Chong, SPP of Department of Justice, for the HKSAR

Mr. Ho Koon Ki Tommy, instructed by Legal Aid Department, assigned by DLA, for the Defendant