HKSAR v Wong Suet-hau, Ice

HCCC 424/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 424 OF 2025

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. She is committed to this court for sentence.

In the evening on 15 April 2024, police officers intercepted the defendant when she returned to her hotel room in Yau Ma Tei, Hong Kong. Armed with a search warrant, police officers entered her hotel room. Inside the room, police officers found 80.42 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 34.09 grammes of cocaine, and 49.3 grammes of ketamine, and a number of drug paraphernalia. The defendant was then arrested.

Under caution, the defendant admitted that the dangerous drugs in question were for sale to others after repackaging them into smaller bags.

The street value of all the dangerous drugs in question was estimated to be somewhere between HK$96,000 and HK$117,000.

The defendant is now aged 48. She has six criminal records, two similar to the present one.

The notional starting point based on the quantity alone for all the dangerous drugs under the latest “Ratio Test” is one of 10 years and 8 months’ imprisonment (ie 128 months’ imprisonment). That is less than 11 years and 2 months (ie 134 months) imposed on the methamphetamine hydrochloride quantity alone. That cannot be right.

In the case of HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885, CACC 208/2024, the Court of Appeal then stated that the ratio test used was only as a reference check.

In this particular case, had all the drugs involved were methamphetamine hydrochloride, the notional starting point would be one of 12 years and 7 months’ imprisonment. In light of that, the proper notional starting point in my view would be one of 12 years’ imprisonment, and that would be 10 months more than the 11 years and 2 months imposed on trafficking in 80.42 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride alone.

The defendant in this case was not simply acting as a courier. In essence, she purchased the drugs, the dangerous drugs in question in bulk, allegedly with financial assistance from another drug pusher according to the defendant’s mitigation, and then repackaged them into smaller packs before she delivered them to her potential customers.

Given the role the defendant played and her past criminal records, an additional 6 months will be added, thus making a total of 150 months’ imprisonment. The only mitigating factor in this case is her earliest plea.

In conclusion, for the sole offence the defendant stands convicted, she is therefore sentenced to 100 months’ imprisonment.