HKSAR v. Kuan Chun Ho
|
HCCC 68/2026 [2026] HKCFI 4895 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 68 OF 2026 ________________________
________________________
________________________ Transcript of the Audio Recording ________________________ COURT: The defendant, Kuan Chun-ho, 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 (that is the 1st count) and one count of assaulting police officers in the due execution of their duties, contrary to section 36(b) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Chapter 212 (that is the 2nd count). The defendant pleaded guilty to both charges before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence. As the statement of offence of the 2nd count referred to more than one police officer, which was contrary to the Admitted Facts and the particulars, the 2nd charge was amended and the defendant formally pleaded guilty before me, and the defendant confirmed his plea and also confirmed that he had admitted to the facts before the magistrate, I formally found the defendant also guilty of the 2nd amended charge. Summary of Facts On 17 October 2024, PC17167, Pang Ka-long, was patrolling in the area of Cheung Sha Wan and he saw the defendant driving a car with registration number ES915. At that time the car passed a zebra crossing, so Mr Pang gave chase and intercepted the defendant outside Lim Kit House in Lei Cheng Uk Estate for enquiries. The defendant appeared to be nervous. Mr Pang noticed the black plastic bag at the driver’s door pocket and suspected it contained dangerous drug, and Pang therefore detained the defendant by blocking the driver doorway whilst calling for support. As Mr Pang waited, the defendant pushed Mr Pang away to escape, taking the black plastic bag with him. Mr Pang tried to grab on the defendant and the two scuffled but the defendant took off his shirt and fled. The defendant ran towards the roadside and into a planter, where he fell onto the ground. Mr Pang then got on top of the defendant to subdue him and the defendant kept struggling on the ground. A passerby, a Mr Lit, came to the assistance of Mr Pang and the defendant was handcuffed. Search of the bag carried by the defendant and the car upon arrival of the support officers and the following were seized. In the plastic bag which was carried by the defendant, there was a total of nine plastic bags containing 215 grammes of a solid containing 183 grammes of cocaine. In the car driver door pocket, there were three plastic bags containing a total of 59.6 grammes of a solid containing 49.1 grammes of cocaine. At the car’s centre console, there was a plastic bag containing 140 plastic bags containing a total of 22.6 grammes of a solid containing 19.3 grammes of cocaine. At the same place, four plastic bags containing 82 plastic bags containing a total of 22.6 grammes of a solid containing 18.9 grammes of cocaine was also found. Police also seized cash of HK$3.294.9 and three mobile phones from the defendant. The estimated street value of the cocaine seized from the defendant and in the car at the time of the offence was about, for cocaine powder, $273,429. If it is crack cocaine, it is $388,237. As a result of the defendant’s assault and subsequent struggle, the officer sustained mild tenderness and swelling over his right hand and he was granted two days sick leave by the doctor. The background and mitigation According to the antecedents statement, the defendant is a single man born in March 1994 and so is now 32 years of age. He is not a first offender. In 2017, he was convicted of wounding and claiming to be a member of a triad society and was sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment. In 2025, he was convicted of common assault and was sentenced to 8 weeks’ imprisonment. For that offence, the prosecution confirmed that the defendant assaulted a Correctional Services Department officer after he was arrested for the present offence. The defendant claimed to be educated up to secondary level and was working in a kitchen at the time of the arrest. Mr Freddy Woon, defence counsel, provided more information on the defendant. The defendant has an 8-year-old daughter with his ex-girlfriend but he had no contact with them, and the defendant has a 6-year-old son living with his ex-wife. His mother passed away when he was 18 of cancer. His father suffers from chest complication and could not continue to work as a decoration worker. The defendant worked as a chef after finishing Form 3 until 2017, when he was jailed for the wounding and the member of triad society offence. After he was released from jail, he worked as a delivery worker until he was arrested. At the time, he was earning about $25,000 to $30,000 a month. As for the reason for committing this serious offence, counsel informed this Court that the defendant’s young son required regular paediatric treatment. His son was hospitalised just a few days before the offences and the defendant tried to raise money. The defendant agreed to deliver drugs for a friend for a reward of $12,000. The defendant was however arrested before he could make any deliveries. Counsel submitted that the defendant acted as a courier and the amount of cocaine involved warranted a starting point of 12 years and 11.2 months, applying the arithmetical approach. Counsel also urged this Court not to enhance the starting point as the defendant’s previous convictions in 2017 were not similar to the present offences. Counsel also submitted that the assault on the police officer was not a bad case, involving pushing the officer away rather than actually attacking by punching or kicking. The defendant’s struggle after he was intercepted was not very violent. The officer suffered only minor injuries. Counsel urged this court to consider the most possible lenient sentence. The defendant wrote to this Court saying that he committed the offence due to financial pressure and greed. He promised he would reform himself and take care of his father and his son. He expressed his remorse and asked to be sentenced as leniently as possible. Defendant’s aunt and cousin also wrote to this Court stressing that the defendant was a person with kind nature but he was very affected by the death of his mother, and he has associated with bad elements of the society to commit the offence. They both asked this Court to be lenient to the defendant so that he could take care of his 6-year-old son. My 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 the case of Herry Jane Yusuph. Step 1: The dangerous drug involved was 270.30 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 the case of Huang Ruifang (No 3). 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 13 years, that is I take into account the number of packets of dangerous drug when he was arrested. Step 4: There were no aggravating factors as far as the trafficking itself is concerned. The only other factor is that the defendant is not a first offender. As the previous convictions were not similar, I will not enhance the sentence. Step 5: The mitigating factor. The only mitigating factor is the defendant’s early plea. The financial difficulties he faced do not amount to mitigating factor to reduce the sentence. For his early plea, he is entitled to a full one-third discount. With the discount, the sentence would be 8 years and 8 months. The last step, 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. Now, for the offence of assaulting a police officer in due execution of his duty, a person convicted upon indictment is liable to imprisonment for 2 years. Assaulting a police officer in due execution of his duty is not a minor matter. If an offender is sentenced too lightly, it might give the general public a wrong impression that one can assault a police officer with little consequences. Such an attitude would hinder the job of police officers and may even subject them to unnecessary violence. I am of the view that a starting point of 9 months is appropriate in this case. Giving the defendant a full one-third discount, the sentence is 6 months. As the 2nd offence is distinct in nature from the 1st count, the sentences should not be totally concurrent. After considering the totality principle, I am of the view that 2 months of the 2nd count should run consecutively with the 8 years and 8 months imposed in the 1st count, making a total of 8 years and 10 months. So the actual sentence for the 1st count, 8 years and 8 months. 2nd count, 6 months. 2 months of the 2nd count to run consecutively with the 8 years and 8 months for the 1st count, making a total of 8 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
|
