COURT: Now, the defendant, Chan Ho-yin, was charged with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. He pleaded guilty before a Magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.
Summary of Facts
At about 9.30 pm, on 20 July 2024, a roadblock was set up by uniformed police officers at Dundas Street near Canton Road. Uniformed police officers saw a private car with registration number, YS2033, driving along Ferry Street, and turning to Dundas Street. When the private car was driven past No. 2 to No. 8 Dundas Street, it suddenly stopped, reversed, and stopped at No. 2 to 8 Dundas Street.
Police saw the defendant alight from the said private car and later walked along Dundas Street. Police officers followed the defendant, and when the defendant reached the junction of Ferry Street and Dundas Street, he saw the police officers and ran along Ferry Street towards Mong Kok. The defendant then turned into a back alley. Defendant was seen dropping an object to the flowerbed near lamppost AB4857.
The defendant was finally intercepted at the footbridge near Tak Cheong Street Playground and was handcuffed. The police brought the defendant back to lamppost AB4857 and found a car key in the flowerbed. The defendant was then brought back to the private car. In the presence of the defendant, the door of the private car was unlocked by using the car key found in the flowerbed.
Upon search of the private car in the presence of the defendant, the following items were found. Under the driver’s seat:
(a) A grey bag containing four plastic packets containing a total of 95.8 grammes of a solid containing 69.7 grammes of cocaine.
(b) A plastic bag containing five plastic packets containing a total of 95.8 grammes of a solid containing 71.2 grammes of cocaine.
(c) Three plastic packets containing a total of 47.5 grammes of a solid containing 38.4 grammes of cocaine; and
(d) A paper bag containing one plastic bag containing 18.8 grammes of a solid containing 14.6 grammes of cocaine.
Then, on the carpet of the front passenger seat, these were found. Another paper bag containing plastic bag, again, containing 70 bags containing a total of 8.82 grammes of a solid containing 7.25 grammes of cocaine. Another plastic bag containing 100 plastic bags containing a total of 13.2 grammes of a solid containing 10.7 grammes of cocaine.
There was a paper bag containing a broken plastic bag containing 61 plastic bags containing a total of 7.92 grammes of a solid containing 6.3 grammes of cocaine. And another plastic bag containing 101 plastic bags containing a total of 12.8 grammes of a solid containing 10.4 grammes of cocaine.
A total of 345 plastic bags or packets of plastic bags containing a total of 300.64 grammes of a solid containing 228.55 grammes of cocaine were seized by the police.
The defendant was arrested and remained silent under verbal caution, and in the subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant also remained silent under caution. Upon search, two mobile phones and cash, $220, were found on the defendant.
The owner of the private car confirmed that the defendant borrowed the car from him. The owner denied knowledge of the defendant’s wrongdoing.
The estimated prevailing street value of the dangerous drug seized was $225,781 (in powder form) and $315,071 (in crack form).
The defendant admitted that he unlawfully possessed the dangerous drug seized for the purpose of trafficking.
Background and Mitigation
According to the antecedent statement, the defendant is a married man born in 1993 and is now 32 years old. The defendant is not a man with a clear record. He appeared in court seven times since 2009, and had eight convictions. Of these eight convictions, one was for possession of dangerous drugs in 2012, and two were for trafficking in a dangerous drug in 2014. The defendant claimed to be educated up to Form 3 level, and was unemployed at the time of the arrest.
Defence counsel, Mr Chau Hing-pang, provided the Court with more information about the defendant. Defendant’s mother left the family when the defendant was 6, and only returned 12 years later. His father passed away in 2016. His mother was diagnosed with depression and received treatment at a mental hospital. The defendant went astray at an early age and was addicted to cocaine in 2011. He had a string of convictions, and after he was released from custody, he became drug free, and worked as a salesperson.
However, in 2023, defendant developed panic disorder resulting in him having difficulties in breathing and facing people. He sought treatment, but to no avail. Due to the disorder, he lost his job and had to rely on savings and later borrowed money for family expenses. He related his financial situation to some friends, and one of them asked defendant to deliver dangerous drugs for a reward. Defendant was then married and had a new-born daughter of 1 month old. The defendant foolishly agreed to deliver the drug, and he did it while using a car borrowed from another friend.
Counsel submitted the defendant is deeply remorseful, as shown in a letter the defendant had written to this Court. Defendant acknowledged the wrong he had caused to the society and his own family. He regretted not being able to spend time with his daughter, and he promised to better himself by studying while in custody, and not to commit crime when he is released. The defendant’s wife, defendant’s mother, and elder sister, all wrote to this Court asking for leniency.
Counsel acknowledged that the defendant is a repeated offender, and referred to the case of HKSAR v Lau Tsz Ho [2015] 1 HKC 491, in relation to the principles for enhancement of sentence.
Counsel placed emphasis on the fact that the defendant was convicted of a drug trafficking offence a little more than 10 years ago, and as the case was dealt with in the Magistracy with the defendant being sent to a training centre, the case was not of a serious nature.
Finally, counsel asked this Court to give the defendant one-third discount for his early plea.
Consideration for the Sentence
Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence. A person convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug on indictment is liable to a fine of $5 million and to imprisonment for life.
I will adopt the six-step approach in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.
Step 1, the dangerous drug involved was 228.55 grammes of cocaine, which falls into the band of 200 to 500 grammes, with a starting point of 12 to 16 years, according to the revised guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138. 12 to 16 years, within the band of 200 to 500 grammes.
Step 2, on the evidence before me, the role of the defendant was that of a courier.
Step 3, within the relevant band, the proper starting point for this defendant is 12 years and 5 months.
Step 4, there are no aggravating factors as far as the offence itself is concerned. The only other factor is that the defendant is not a first offender. He had eight previous convictions, and three of them are drug related. Worse still, two of the three were trafficking in a dangerous drug.
However, as pointed out by Mr Chau, the case was dealt with in a Magistracy and the defendant was sent to a training centre, so the nature of that case would not have been too serious. I should say those cases; there were two of them. Further, the conviction was 10 years ago. I will not enhance the sentence here.
Step 5, the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount. So with the one-third discount, the sentence would be 8 years and 3 months, equal to 99 months.
Now, while I appreciate the financial burden faced by the defendant at the time of the offence, such difficulty does not amount to a mitigating factor. I am prepared, however, to give a discount of 3 months in relation to the defendant’s panic disorder, even though the defendant is unable to produce medical records to substantiate such a claim.
Panic disorder was not something under the defendant’s control, and the defendant was unable to hold down a job because of such a disorder, resulting in the defendant foolishly choosing to commit this serious crime of trafficking in a dangerous drug.
So with the discount, the sentence is one of 8 years.
Step 6, I am of the view that the sentence is fair, just and balanced, in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant as the offender.
So the actual sentence for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the defendant is sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.
