HKSAR v. Wong Chin Chak

DCCC 1656/2025

[2026] HKDC 1070

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1656 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a total of 5 charges today, the most substantial charge being the 1^st charge, trafficking in a dangerous drug.  Then following that, possession of a Part 1 poison which is nicotine in this case and then the final 3 charges relate to the fact that the defendant was driving without a valid licence in an unlicenced vehicle, which also leads to the offence of using the motor vehicle without third party insurance.

2.The charges and facts came to light as a result of a police operation conducted on 10 April 2025 at Argyle Street near Sai Yeung Choi Street.  The car driven by the defendant was detected to be without a valid licence.  It was subsequently intercepted in Tong Mi Road.  The defendant was the driver and the sole passenger was his girlfriend and the defendant did make an attempt to flee.

3.A search of the vehicle found the drugs which constitute charge 1.  They were found in the driver’s door side compartment.  There was totally 1 transparent resealable bag which contained inside that 14 further small transparent resealable bags, containing a total of 4.16 grammes of a solid containing the narcotic content of 3.53 grammes of cocaine.  Some $7,000-odd was seized from the defendant and the street value of the drugs seized is $8,434.80. 

4.In the course of video-recorded interviews conducted on 12 April 2025, the defendant admitted ownership of the dangerous drugs.  He knew that the substance was cocaine and having purchased the drugs on 10 April at To Kwa Wan Recreation Ground.  He had taken a taxi to Ma On Shan Country Park to retrieve the vehicle then drove to his residence to pick up his girlfriend.

5.The other charges relate to other matters in, firstly, that an e-cigarette was discovered inside the vehicle that contained 1.82 grammes of a liquid containing nicotine which is listed as a Part I poison.  The defendant was also found to be driving without a driving licence.  The defendant’s probationary driving licence had expired on 27 March 2025 and he has never held a full driving licence.  The car was also driven without third party insurance and the vehicle itself was unlicenced.  The defendant also admitted that he was aware of the fact that these offences were committed in relation to the vehicle. 

6.The defendant’s antecedents put forward in court were shown to be at the time they were taken to be 28 years old.  He has a number of previous convictions which are similar.  He was convicted on 18 November 2015 for possession of a dangerous drug and was sent to Rehabilitation Centre.  On 16 September 2021, the defendant was convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was sent to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.  Defendant was again convicted of trafficking on 18 December 2024 and sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment, or it appeared to be 2 counts of trafficking.  The defendant was in custody originally in April of 2024, was released for a short period starting on 1 February 2025 and then has been in custody again since his arrest on these matters in April 2025.  So the defendant’s previous criminal history in relation to drugs is a poor one given he is still relatively young.

7.I will deal with the mitigation put forward now.  At the time the offences were committed defendant was 26 years old.  He is now 28 years old and single.  He has a father who is 75 years old and retired and a mother working as a sales person.  He is the only child of the family and the defendant had lived with his father in a public housing unit.  He comes from a family of modest means.  He has taken up various jobs such as logistic work and hair apprentice.

8.The mitigation from the defendant points out his previous convictions and it would appear since 2024 the defendant has either been released or been involved in what is called the drug trade. Defendant says now that he is remorseful, reflected on what he called his foolish acts, in fact and has been in custody for quite a considerable period already.

9.In the defendant’s mitigation, the defendant also asked me to take into account when sentencing that he says a part of the drugs that were found in his possession would have been used for his own consumption.  Defendant is not saying this is a substantial part but asks that the court in its discretion to at least acknowledge the fact that he is a drug addict and would have consumed a part of the drugs himself. 

10.I turn to the principle of sentencing which are straightforward and well-known.  The most recent sentencing authority for the approach to trafficking cases is the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 which sets forward a 6-step approach which involves items such as assessing the role and culpability of the defendant, assessing the relevant guideline for the type of drug concerned and considering where the defendant should lie within the guideline, consider aggravating or mitigating factors and then finally to reach a sentence that is fair, described as fair, just and balanced in the circumstances of the case.

11.The defendant of course is convicted at this stage of other offences.  They are somewhat overshadowed by the trafficking in the cocaine but the defendant also is convicted of possession of a Part I poison which is a possession of the nicotine which has led to either fines or small sentences of imprisonment for people convicted of that offence. The offences of driving without a valid driving licence can lead to a sentence of imprisonment or fines, similarly, with using a motor vehicle without third party insurance and driving an unlicenced vehicle.  There is of course no guideline sentences for those particular offences.

12.There is, however, a guideline sentence for the trafficking of the cocaine.  The narcotic content of that cocaine is 3.53 grammes which falls into the band of 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment as established in the most recent authority of Huang Ruifang at No. 3 and I am told that an arithmetical calculation for that amount of cocaine would lead to a starting point for sentence or a notional starting point for sentence of 36.7 months’ imprisonment.  That of course can be rounded down to 36 months.

13.One then looks at the defendant’s role to see if there would be any aggravating factors arising out of his role in this case.  The defendant seems to be what I describe as a low-level courier of the drugs, moving them from one place to another and that is all that could be said in respect of that.  The only other relevant aggravating factor in this case will of course be the defendant’s poor history of previous convictions for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug.  This will be his third conviction.  Given that he is only 28, that is a serious matter.

14.I have been referred to cases involving the extent to which a sentence, a notional starting point should be increased as a result of the defendant’s previous convictions.  There is, again, no guideline as to how that is achieved and I would note that in other sentencings, increases of between 3 to 6 months’ imprisonment are regularly imposed for aggravating factors such as the defendant’s poor previous conviction history.

15.The mitigating factors I would consider would be, firstly, the defendant’s plea of guilty.  The defendant has shown remorse and indicated a plea from the early stage and admitted his role in this matter from an early stage.  The second one is the fact that the defendant is putting forward that he should receive some acknowledgment of the fact that he is a drug addict or has been a drug addict and was a drug addict at the time when he took this cocaine into his possession.

16.The fact of the defendant’s drug addiction is largely confirmed by his previous conviction history and also, I am told, the presence of cocaine and I believe another drug, cannabis, in his blood on an assay test when the defendant was taken into custody in April 2025.  That would appear to produce an evidential basis for the court taking that into account in sentencing.  Those would appear to be the factors I should take into account in sentencing the defendant for these offences.

17.Having set out the principles and the approach that I will take, I will now give a figure for the sentencing of the defendant.  On the 1^st charge, the notional starting point should of course be 36 months’ imprisonment.  That is subject to the aggravating factor, in this case the defendant’s poor conviction history and his role in the offence.  I will increase the sentence by 6 months to reflect that to 42 months’ imprisonment.  That is the notional starting point of 42 months’ imprisonment.

18.I identified 2 mitigating factors. Firstly, defendant’s consumption of a portion of the drugs, not a substantial portion, but the consumption of a portion of the drugs allows me to make a discretionary reduction to that figure.  I shall reduce the starting point now to one of 39 months’ imprisonment. 

19.The defendant is entitled on that starting point to a deduction of one-third which leads to a sentence on the 1^st charge of 26 months’ imprisonment. 

20.On the 2^nd charge, I take a starting point of 3 weeks’ imprisonment, reduce that to 2 weeks’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.

21.On the 3^rd charge, I will take a starting point of 6 weeks’ imprisonment, reduce that to 4 weeks’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty. 

22.On the 4^th charge, a starting point of 6 weeks’ imprisonment, reduced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment and a 12-month disqualification from driving. 

23.On the 5^th charge, a starting point of 6 weeks’ imprisonment, reduced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.

24.The offences are of different nature but were committed effectively all at the same time.  Having regard to the overall totality of sentence, I shall order all sentences be served concurrently to a total of 26 months’ imprisonment and of course a 12 months disqualification from driving.