HKSAR v. Siu Tak Wing
|
HCCC 429/2025 [2026] HKCFI 4712 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 429 OF 2025 ________________________
________________________
_________________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE _________________________________ INTRODUCTION 1.The Defendant, SIU Tak-wing (“D”), pleaded guilty on 11 December 2025 before a Magistrate to two charges and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. This morning before me, he confirmed his pleas and the admission of the facts. In sentencing, I have considered the admitted Summary of Facts, the mitigation submissions filed on his behalf by his counsel, the antecedents of the Defendant, the authorities submitted by both parties, and the sentencing calculations provided by the Prosecution. In determining the appropriate sentence, I adopt the structured six-step approach set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as modified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, and the recent guidance in HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885 (CACC 208/2024). THE CHARGES 2.D faced two charges:
FACTS 3.On 7 April 2024, at about 1:13 am, police officers intercepted a private car with registration mark YV 4832. The driver was driving in a high speed in and unsteady manner at Fuk To Street near the junction of Kwun Tong Road, Ngau Tau Kok, Kowloon. The police found D was the driver of the vehicle and he appeared dull and kept looking at the police officer during investigation. D was thus suspected to be in possession of drugs and was also under influence of drugs. 4.Upon searching the vehicle, officers found and seized:
5.In total, the drugs seized from the vehicle were 26.84 grammes of cocaine and 47.13 grammes of ketamine. 6.Cash in the sums of HK$13,423.5,HK$2,925.6 and RMB 420, and a mobile phone were also found and seized upon search on the person of D. 7.A breath test conducted on D detected no alcohol. 8.At about 5:45 am, a blood specimen was taken from D. Subsequent analysis certified that cocaine, Benzoylecgonine, and Ecgonine methylester were present in his blood. 9.D was arrested and cautioned but he did not say anything. 10.In a subsequent video-recorded interview, D stated that the car did not belong to him which he had rented from another party. THE ANTECEDENTS OF THE DEFENDANT 11.D is a male, aged 37 (born in the Chinese Mainland in September 1988). He has a criminal record in Hong Kong (Trafficking in DD). In 2018, he was sentenced to a total of 9 years and 5 months for two trafficking offences in High Court. His last discharge from prison was 29 April 2023, less than a year before the present offence. 12.D has a history of traffic offences, including:
13.D has completed Form 5 education. He was a renovation worker at the time of arrest. He is single with no fixed abode. DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION 14.I have carefully considered the mitigation submissions filed on behalf of D by his counsel, Mr. Gibson Shaw. 15.D is described as a hard-working and diligent individual who previously worked as a renovation worker. 16.Mr. Shaw told me that D faced financial difficulties. He was forced to contend with a shortage of work, which led to an unstable income. He was only able to take on casual work, and his monthly earnings fell sharply. In order to meet his daily expenses, he committed the present offences, introduced by unsavoury associates, so as to earn a small amount of money. 17.D has a previous criminal conviction for a similar offence. He committed the present offence less than a year after his release. Mr. Shaw recognises that this is an aggravating factor but nevertheless implores the court to impose the most lenient sentence possible. 18.I was told that D understands the seriousness of this incident and is willing to take responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty. He is fully aware that facing up to and acknowledging his mistakes is the right attitude to adopt if he is to turn over a new leaf. He deeply regrets his foolish decision to take a shortcut to “make a quick buck”. 19.Following this incident, D was arrested by the police in April 2024 and has now been in custody for over two years. During this time, he has reflected on his actions and is deeply aware of his wrongdoing. 20.D feels a sense of guilt towards his mother (aged 65, cleaner). He is ashamed that not only has he failed to repay her kindness, but has also caused her worry. He is determined to turn over a new leaf and start afresh. 21.Mr. Shaw submitted that the circumstances of Charge 2 are not among the most serious of their kind, as D’s driving did not result in a road traffic accident, property damage, or personal injury, nor do the facts indicate he was incapable of properly controlling the vehicle. MITIGATING FACTORS ADVANCED 22.I have taken all of these matters into account. The early plea is the most significant mitigating factor. D’s remorse, as demonstrated by his frank admissions are also factors I have considered. However, these must be weighed against the very serious nature of the offences, the substantial quantity of drugs involved, and D’s previous similar criminal record. SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHARGE 1: TRAFFICKING IN DANGEROUS DRUGS 23.Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment and a fine of 5 million dollars. The Court of Appeal has established the six-step sentencing approach in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. I shall apply that approach. Step 1: Identify the Relevant Guideline Band 24.The total quantity of drugs seized is:
25.For cocaine, the applicable guideline is HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138. The tariffs are as follows:
26.The quantity of 26.84g of cocaine falls within the 10g to 50g band, which carries a starting point range of 5 to 8 years (60 to 96 months). 27.For ketamine, the applicable guideline is Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. The tariffs are as follows:
28.The quantity of 47.13g of ketamine falls within the 10g to 50g band, which carries a starting point range of 4 to 6 years (48 to 72 months). Step 2: Assess the Defendant’s Role and Culpability 29.By pleading guilty to Charge 1, D now admits that the drugs were for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. He was the driver of the vehicle in which the drugs were concealed. The drugs were found in the vehicle under his control. The presence of cash and a mobile phone, as well as the packaging of the drugs (multiple resealable plastic bags containing cocaine and ketamine), strongly indicates D was involved in the preparation and dissemination of the drugs akin to an actual drug trafficker. 30.His role is more active and integral than a mere courier or custodian. His culpability is accordingly higher. Step 3: Identify the Starting Point within the Band 31.The drugs involved are a cocktail of cocaine and ketamine. In determining the appropriate starting point for such a cocktail of drugs, I have adopted the combined approach in determining the base starting point, subject to employing the ratio test as a cross-check, as approved by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885 (CACC 208/2024). The Prosecution has helpfully provided the following calculation which is also adopted by the Defence in its mitigation.
32.Given the role and culpability in the offence of D, who was no mere courier or storekeeper, I considered an increase of approximately 10 months and an overall starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment (96 months) is appropriate. I am satisfied that this is a fair starting point before considering aggravating and mitigating factors. Step 4: Aggravating Factors for Enhancement 33.I now consider aggravating factors personal to D that justify enhancing the starting point. 34.Trafficking in a cocktail of drugs: As held in HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644, trafficking in a cocktail of drugs is an aggravating factor as it caters to a wider market. An increase of 3 months is appropriate. 35.Previous conviction for a similar offence: D has a Trafficking in DD record in Hong Kong. He committed the present offence less than a year after his last discharge from custody on 29 April 2023. His previous conviction for a similar offence is a significant aggravating factor. An increase of 9 months is appropriate. 36.The notional sentence after trial is therefore:
Step 5: Mitigating Factors for Discount 37.I now consider all mitigating factors to determine the overall discount from the notional sentence after trial:
38.Applying the one-third discount to the notional sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment:
39.The sentence for Charge 1 after mitigation is therefore 6 years’ imprisonment. SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHARGE 2: DRUG DRIVING 40.I now turn to Charge 2. D drove a motor vehicle while cocaine, Benzoylecgonine, and Ecgonine methyl ester were present in his blood. 41.The Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Chan Hon Hoi [2011] 1 HKLRD 808 emphasised that driving under the influence of drugs creates a manifest danger on the roads and deterrent penalties are necessary. Driving is a highly complex skill determined by changes in physical, emotional and mental conditions, all of which can be impaired by the use of drugs. 42.Fortunately, as submitted by Mr. Shaw, D’s driving did not result in a road traffic accident, property damage, or personal injury. 43.D has a history of traffic offences, including speeding and failing to comply with traffic signals, which is an aggravating factor. However, those are relatively minor traffic convictions, given the absence of accident or injury, I consider that a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for this charge which will also be reduced by one-third to 8 months’ imprisonment on account of D’s plea. 44.Under section 39K(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374), on conviction on indictment, D is liable to a fine at level 4 and to imprisonment for 3 years. Under section 39K(3), D must be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of not less than 2 years unless special reasons exist (see section 39K(2)). No special reasons have been advanced by Mr. Shaw. 45.As to the proper period of disqualification, the sentencing principles that underly disqualification orders are well established. The following summary of them is taken from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Hung Ling Kwok [2010] 4 HKLRD 365:
46.Considering the imprisonment term imposed is to be over 6 years, I therefore impose an order disqualifying D from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of 8 years and 6 months from the date of this order, in order to give effect that the disqualification period in Charge 2 should be 2 years. Under section 72A(3B) of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374), D is further ordered to attend and complete a driving improvement course at his own expense within the last 3 months of his disqualification period. Step 6: Apply the Totality Principle and Finalise Sentence 47.I must stand back and ensure the total sentence is fair, just, and proportionate to D’s overall criminality (Herry Jane Yusuph at §79). 48.The sentence for Charge 1 is 6 years’ imprisonment. The sentence for Charge 2 is 8 months’ imprisonment. 49.While the charges arise from the same incident, they are offences of a different nature: one is drug trafficking, the other is endangering public safety on the roads. To reflect the separate criminality and the need for deterrence, bearing in mind the totality principle, I order that 6 months of the sentence for Charge 2 run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1, and the remaining 2 months run concurrently. 50.The total sentence is therefore:
51.I am satisfied that this sentence reflects the gravity of trafficking a significant quantity of a cocktail of drugs (over 73 grammes narcotic weight) and driving under the influence of drugs. It is adequately deterrent and punitive. The sentence is not crushing nor disproportionate. CONCLUSION 52.Accordingly, D is sentenced as follows:
53.Total sentence: 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 54.D is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 102 months (8 years and 6 months) from today, and is ordered to attend and complete a driving improvement course at his own expense within the last 3 months of his disqualification period.
Mr. Antony Leung, SPP of Department of Justice, for the HKSAR Mr. Gibson Shaw, instructed by T.H. Wong & Co., assigned by The Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment