COURT: Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. The particulars are that you, on the 10th day of November 2024, outside No. 456 Shanghai Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 988 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 988 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The Facts
The facts admitted by the defendant are these. At about 4.36 pm on 10 November 2024, the defendant left his residence at Ching Yu House, Ching Ho Estate, Sheung Shui, carrying a Deliveroo paper bag (“the Paper Bag”). He boarded a taxi driven by PW1 at the taxi stand at Ching Ho Estate and directed PW1 towards Shanghai Street, Mong Kok. He later asked PW1 to stop outside Ah Yung Hotpot Cuisine at No. 456 Shanghai Street.
As the taxi was reaching the destination, the defendant asked PW1 to let his friend get on the taxi and take him back to Sheung Shui afterwards. PW1 refused. At about 5.10 pm, as the taxi stopped outside No. 456 Shanghai Street, PW1 pointed out to the defendant that police officers were looking at him. The defendant immediately said, “Drive, drive, drive” and asked PW1 to drive away.
At the same time, PW2, a plain-clothed police officer and other uniformed officers were patrolling along Shanghai Street. PW2 observed the defendant sitting in the left rear passenger seat looking around furtively and signalled PW3 and other police constables to stop the taxi. PW3 signalled PW1 to open the left rear door and PW3 saw the Paper Bag in front of the defendant’s feet.
Upon initial inquiry, the defendant told PW3 that the Paper Bag was not his. PW3 opened the tape-sealed Paper Bag in the defendant’s presence and found a tape-sealed carton box (“the Carton Box”). Inside the Carton Box were one yellow-lined transparent resealable plastic bag containing another resealable plastic bag marked “1000.2” of white solids (“E1”) and one piece of Styrofoam.
At about 5.17 pm, PW3 arrested the defendant for trafficking in a dangerous drug. Under caution, the defendant stated that he received $500 to deliver this item for another person.
The government chemist subsequently confirmed that E1 contained 988 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 988 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The estimated street value was approximately $525,616.
A consensual house search was conducted at the defendant’s residence. One box of yellow-lined transparent plastic bags, one electronic scale, one roll of adhesive tape, and one box of gloves were found.
The defendant now accepts and admits that at the material times, he knowingly possessed the dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
Background and Mitigation
The defendant is 71 years of age, 70 at the time of the offence. He was born in Hong Kong. He is single. He was educated to Primary 3 level. He has been unemployed and has relied on Comprehensive Social Security Allowance of HK$4,700 per month since 2008. His parents have passed away and he has lost contact with his two sisters and five brothers.
The defendant is a drug addict. He was last released from the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre on 25 April 2008. He claimed to have a habit of consuming heroin twice a week.
The defendant has numerous previous convictions, spanning from 1972 to 2007. The vast majority are for trafficking and dishonesty offences committed between 1972 and 1986, including theft, taking conveyance without authority, robbery, and forgery. The most recent convictions are theft in 2004 for which he was fined $300 and a possession of a dangerous drug in 2007 for which he was ordered to undergo treatment at DATC. He has no previous conviction for drug trafficking.
In mitigation, counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to one-third discount. Counsel submitted that the defendant’s role was that of a courier. Counsel further submitted that the defendant committed the offence due to financial pressure and for quick money, that he is of old age and the chance of reoffending is low. Counsel emphasised the defendant’s remorse.
Counsel further submitted that the defendant made a non-prejudicial statement on 19 September 2025 and another one on 28 May 2026 to ask this court to exercise its discretion to render some discount. In response, the prosecution confirmed that the result is of no practical assistance. Hence, I am of the view that the current situation does not warrant any additional sentencing discount.
Sentencing Considerations
With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho, I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph.
First Step: Identifying the Relevant Guideline Band
The relevant guideline for trafficking in methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as ‘Ice’) is set out in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang, which provides that trafficking in 600 to 1,500 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride attracts a starting point range of 18 to 20 years’ imprisonment after trial.
The quantity involved in the present case is 988 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. By linear interpolation, this quantity attracts a notional starting point of 18 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, namely 226 months’ imprisonment.
Second Step: the Defendant’s Role and Culpability
I accept that on the facts, the defendant was acting as a courier. He was arrested whilst delivering the drugs for a reward of $500. There is no evidence to suggest that his role went beyond that of a courier. As held by the Court of Appeal in Herry Jane Yusuph (at paragraph 49), the guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs are devised for those at the bottom of the trafficking hierarchy, namely the courier or storekeeper. As such, there is no enhancement on account of the defendant’s role.
Third Step: Placement within the Guideline Band
Considering the overall role and culpability of the defendant, I find that the notional starting point of 18 years and 10 months’ imprisonment remains appropriate.
Fourth Step: Aggravating Factors
I find no aggravating factors beyond those inherent in the offence itself. As to the defendant’s previous convictions, I note that he has no previous conviction for drug trafficking. His other convictions are predominantly trafficking and dishonesty offences, the vast majority of which are more than 40 years old.
In spite of his criminal records, in view of the fact that his last conviction took place in 2007, and of his age, and the likely sentence that he will receive in respect of this case, I will not enhance sentenced on this account.
Fifth Step: Mitigating Factors
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity for which he is entitled to the full one-third discount. After deduction, the sentence is 150 months’ imprisonment.
As for the personal and family circumstances of the defendant, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that they carry little weight in serious drug trafficking cases.
While I note that the defendant’s advanced aged and his financial difficulties, these matters cannot carry significant weight in the case involving a substantial quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride, I do not make any further reduction on this account.
Sixth Step: Totality and Overall Fairness
After the deduction as stated, the sentence is 150 months’ imprisonment. I have stood back and considered the sentence as a whole. The sentence is undoubtedly severe, however, having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the defendant’s role and culpability, I am satisfied that the sentence is fair, just, balanced to the offence as well as to the defendant.
You are sentenced to 150 months’ imprisonment, namely 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
