HKSAR v. Kuong Vai Hang

HCCC 166/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 166 OF 2026

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant plead guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. In that, he was charged on 26 March 2025, in Mong Kok, trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 25.7 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 25.7 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

He also plead guilty to another count, which is possession of dangerous drugs, charging him on the same day at the same place, in his possession dangerous drugs, namely, 0.17 grammes of a liquid containing 0.02 grammes of etomidate and traces of metomidate, and 2.21 grammes of a liquid containing 0.29 grammes of etomidate.

The facts are as follows, which is basically a stop and search case.

The Facts

At around 5.30 pm on 26 March 2025, uniformed police officers were patrolling when they saw defendant acting furtively outside No. 189 Portland Street. Police stopped and searched defendant. Defendant was holding an electronic cigarette with a transparent cartridge. Police asked defendant what that was, and defendant replied it was space oil.

It transpired that the cartridge contained 0.17 grammes of a liquid containing 0.02 grammes of etomidate and traces of metomidate. Defendant was arrested for possession of a dangerous drug, and under caution defendant admitted that the electronic cigarette was space oil and he bought it for his own consumption.

The police also found a flask in the back pocket of defendant’s jeans. In the flask, the police found one plastic bag containing 25.7 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 25.7 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The police arrested defendant for trafficking in a dangerous drug, and under caution, defendant asserted that he was not trafficking and the packet of “pork” was for his own consumption. “Pork” is a colloquial term for methamphetamine.

Defendant was further searched on a police vehicle, and the police found hidden in his underpants a plastic bag containing three cartridges containing a total of 2.21 grammes of a liquid containing 0.29 grammes of etomidate.

Defendant was arrested for another offence of possession of a dangerous drug. Under caution, defendant admitted that the three cartridges containing space oil and asserted that he bought them for consumption. Defendant was escorted back to Mong Kok Police Station and was searched thereat. Police found, inter alia, HK$800 and a mobile phone.

Three video‑recorded interviews were conducted with defendant. Under caution, defendant asserted, inter alia, the following.

He bought the electronic cigarettes in Mong Kok from a friend of a friend he knew in Macau. He would smoke on it. He arrived in Hong Kong on the morning of 26 March 2025, through Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge. He intended to get a room to rest and smoke. He had no place of abode in Hong Kong. He worked as a construction worker in Macau and earned around MOP$10,000 per month.

“Pork” was ‘Ice’ and he would consume it by lighting it up in a bottle. He obtained the ‘Ice’ earlier that morning, but he forgot how he got it.

In March 2025, the average retail price for methamphetamine was $533 per gramme, whereas the average retail price for etomidate was $294 per cartridge. The drug seized could have been sold at street level for HK$14,874.

Defendant now admits and accepts that at the material time, he had knowingly possessed the methamphetamine hydrochloride seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. Defendant now admits and accepts that in the material time he had in his possession etomidate and metomidate.

Defendant was born in Macau in 1976. He is now aged 50. He has a clear record in Hong Kong and he lived with his father and sister in Macau. He was a drug addict and at the time when he was remanded in prison, urine test shows that he had taken drugs. In that, amphetamine was tested positive in his urine.

I had a letter written by the defendant before me telling me more about his father and his sister. As said by the Court of Appeal, family circumstances rarely can be a meaningful mitigation in cases as serious as trafficking in dangerous drugs. The only mitigation as I see it from the facts in this case is only really your plea of guilty at the earliest available opportunity.

For 25.7 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the sentencing ranges from 7 years to 10 years, according to the guideline. For 25.7 grammes, calculation shows that it is about 8 years. From the facts admitted and also what your counsel has submitted in her written mitigation, I accept that you may be a courier only and I give you the benefit of doubt and will sentence you on the basis that you are a mere courier.

As I say, the only really mitigation in your case is one of your earliest plea. I will give you full discount, one‑third. So for the 1st count, you are sentenced to 5 years and 4 months.

So far as the 2nd count is concerned, which is simple possession of etomidate for your own consumption, I adopt 3 months’ imprisonment for that count and reduce it for your plea to one of 2 months. I agree with your counsel that the sentence on the 2nd count should be made to run concurrent with the 1st count.

So the total sentence I pass on you is one of 5 years and 4 months.