HKSAR v. Ip Man Sing

HCCC 143/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 143 OF 2026

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant plead guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He was charged on the 23rd day of April 2024, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 46.3 grammes of a solid containing 31 grammes of cocaine, 27.9 grammes of a mixture containing 24 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, 14.6 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 14.5 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 0.25 grammes of a solid containing 0.21 grammes of ketamine, 85 tablets containing 0.64 grammes of nimetazepam, four tablets containing 0.01 grammes of etizolam, and 1.43 grammes of a liquid containing traces of cannabidiol.

The facts are as follows.

On 23 April 2024, police officers mounted an anti-crime patrol in the vicinity of Kowloon City. At around 4.55 am, Police Constable 18030 (“PW1”) spotted defendant sitting on the driver’s seat of a private car with registration number EC423, parked outside No. 16 Mok Cheong Street, Kowloon City, Kowloon. PW1 then approached defendant for inquiry and search.

Upon search of the car, the following dangerous drugs were found. Inside a black waist bag placed under the driver’s seat, the seven types of drugs that I have mentioned in the charge. Inside the pannier, a paper box containing one cartridge containing 1.43 grammes of a liquid containing traces of cannabidiol. The narcotic content of the drugs was subsequently confirmed by the government chemist.

The total estimated value of cocaine, heroin hydrochloride, methamphetamine hydrochloride, and nimetazepam and ketamine are $94,177.40.

Defendant was arrested by PW1. Under caution, defendant stated that the drugs were for his own consumption. In subsequent video-recorded interview, defendant remained silent. Defendant also had with him cash $5,760.50, and two mobile phones at the material time.

Upon vehicle check, the car was found to be registered by the defendant’s wife, who under inquiry stated that she allowed defendant to drive the car. Defendant now accepts and admits that at all material times, he knowingly possessed all subject dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

The defendant was born in China in 1986. He is now 39 years of age. He had received education in China up to Primary level. He was the owner of a restaurant at the time of his arrest. He was a drug addict and had previous convictions relating to possession of dangerous drugs as well as trafficking in dangerous drugs. He was convicted in April 2018 in the District Court for trafficking in dangerous drugs and was sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment. He was released from prison in 2019.

From the mitigation letters submitted to me, the defendant is married with one daughter, aged 13.

There are altogether seven types of drugs. For the purpose of determining the sentencing range for these seven types of drugs, I will only take into consideration cocaine, heroin hydrochloride, and methamphetamine hydrochloride. The others are of a much different type of drugs and of less potency.

In the case of Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75, the appellant in that case plead guilty to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The subject of the 1st charge was 2.96 grammes of a solid containing 2 grammes of cocaine found on her person. The 2nd charge related drugs found on the same day in a hotel room in which the appellant was residing.

In the hotel room, there were various quantities of different types of drugs, namely, 3.39 grammes of a powder containing 2.75 grammes of ketamine, 6.38 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 6.05 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 7.03 grammes of a mixture containing 5.47 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, and finally 11.49 grammes of a solid containing 8.62 grammes of cocaine.

McWalters J (as he then was) giving the judgment for the Court of Appeal said at paragraph 38:

“Taking a global view of the drugs being trafficked, the appropriate course was recognised that there are three serious and potent drugs in the applicant’s possession, heroin, cocaine and ‘Ice’. Adding the ‘Ice’ to the cocaine and heroin produce a total narcotic of 22.14 grammes of serious and potent drugs and the applicant should have been sentenced for that amount using the heroin/cocaine sentencing tariff. Ketamine is too different a drug from heroin, cocaine, and ‘Ice’ for it to be included with them and the only issue is whether a separate additional sentence should be imposed for it.”

Later in paragraph 40:

“We believe that the proper way to have regard to it is after an initial starting point had been identified for the 22.14 grammes of cocaine, heroin, and ‘Ice’ when consideration is given to whether this initial starting point should be enhanced to allow for the fact that the applicant was trafficking in a number of different types of drugs.”

I would adopt a similar approach as suggested in Wan Lau Mei. The add up quantity of ‘Ice’, heroin, and cocaine, the total narcotic is 69.5 grammes. Of that quantity, 69.5 grammes, a significant portion, just over 20 per cent is ‘Ice’, and for that quantities of ‘Ice’, one is looking at a sentencing range of 7 to 11 years.

In choosing the initial starting point, not only I have to take into consideration the total narcotic, and also a significant portion is ‘Ice’, as well as his role and culpability.

The facts which he admitted, namely, in the early hours of the morning, on a private car, parked in public, with seven types of drugs, I cannot accept Mr Yuen’s submission that he is a mere courier, and I would not sentence him on the basis of courier, as I have already given an opportunity to hold a Newton hearing, if the defendant so wish. My invitation was declined. Having taken all this into consideration, I chose an initial starting point of 9 years and 3 months.

Next, I have to consider that the offence committed is serious, in that there are various types of drugs in your possession, which you trafficked.

In the case that I have earlier cited, Wan Lau Mei, the court has said, where an accused is trafficking in a variety of drugs, then that is to be regarded as an aggravating factor, because in such a situation, the trafficker is able to cater to a far wider market than the trafficker in only one kind of drug.

Moreover, in the case of Wong Kin Kau [2010] 4 HKC 443, Tang VP (as he then was) giving a judgment of the Court of Appeal said in paragraph 11:

“There is no evidence that they (drugs) have been mixed into a cocktail to enhance their potency, but the potential is there, and it is something we may take into account.”

Giving consideration to this aggravating factor, I enhance the sentence that is 9 years and 3 months by 9 months. You have three previous convictions, two of which are possession for dangerous drugs, and one for trafficking in dangerous drugs. You were sentenced for trafficking in dangerous drugs to 28 months in 2018. It seems that the 28 months imposed on you by the District Court did not deter you from this evil trade.

In the case of Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186, the Court of Appeal said in paragraph 60:

“It is unrealistic to treat every defendant who has a prior conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs as deserving of at least 2 years’ imprisonment if convicted of trafficking in more than 1 kilogramme of narcotic. The previous conviction may be very different in qualitative and quantitative terms. There may be one or more than one such previous conviction. It may have been recorded in a different jurisdiction of the court, or it may have been relatively recent or a long time ago.”

The court continued:

“It is eminently a matter of discretion, depending upon what may be very different facts and circumstances. We think it unwise to be too prescriptive about when and how a previous conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs should aggravate the starting point for sentence, or whether indeed it should aggravate it at all.”

I have before me letters from your wife and your daughter. I am quite touched by the letter written by your daughter, who is 12 or 13 years of age, a Form 2 student. Having given your record the most anxious consideration, I decide not to enhance your sentence for that reason. So the notional starting point at the end of the day is one of 10 years.

There is nothing in your background which I can exercise any mercy. The only discount which I can give you is your plea of guilty at the first available opportunity. I will give you a full one-third discount.

For the charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs which you have pleaded guilty to, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment for 6 years and 8 months.