COURT: Both defendants pleaded guilty to their respective charges on 1 December 2025 and were committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today they confirm their pleas and admission to the Summary of Facts.
Both defendants were jointly charged with Count 1, conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug. On 28 June 2023 in Hong Kong, both conspired together and with other persons unknown to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely, 13.597 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 13.592 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The 2nd defendant alone faces Count 2. He pleaded guilty to unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug between 24 June and 28 June 2023, at Room B15, Unit B, 7th Floor, King Yip Factory Building, 59 King Yip Street, Kowloon, namely, 159.626 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 158.805 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Facts
On 28 June 2023, at about 11 am, police officers acting on information put a residential unit at Room B, 1st Floor, Ting On Building, Ngau Tau Kok, under observation.
About five hours later, the police observed the 1st defendant leaving the unit and intercepted him. He was carrying a tea-leaf packet which contained 997 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 992 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Using keys found on the 1st defendant, the police entered that unit and found an opened suitcase on the floor. They found 13 packets of ‘Ice’, that is a total of 12.6 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 12.6 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’ in similar tea-leaf packets. The police also found an electronic scale, a spoon and a tenancy agreement.
Within minutes of the 1st defendant’s arrest, other police officers noticed the 2nd defendant appearing suspicious, wandering at street level near the building’s entrance. He was intercepted.
About two hours later, the police officers entered a sub-divided unit at Room B15, 7th Floor, 59 King Yip Factory Building and found four carton boxes containing a total of 159.626 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 158.805 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’. This large amount of ‘Ice’ was packaged in similar tea-leaf packets as those found earlier in Ting On Building. Both defendants were arrested.
The 1st defendant admitted that the drugs found on him were to be delivered as instructed by a person called “Ah Hung” whom he had never met. He was offered 20,000 Vietnamese Dong to retrieve a packet of dangerous drugs from that unit and give it to a person who was waiting downstairs. He was told where to find the keys to the unit on top of the mailbox in the building. He had opened the packet and saw the white substance inside before he was arrested.
The 2nd defendant admitted under caution that he was waiting downstairs in front of that building for a delivery when he was intercepted by the police. He had been to those premises two to three times to collect a package as instructed for which he would receive $2,000 for every delivery. After he received a package, he would be given instructions where to deliver it to.
Those tea-leaf packages were examined for DNA. The police found both the 1st and 2nd defendants’ DNA in the unit of Count 1 amongst the 13 packets of ‘Ice’ found there. The police only lifted the 2nd defendant’s DNA on one packet of ‘Ice’ in the second unit. Hence, Count 2 against the 2nd defendant only.
Other evidence against the 2nd defendant in Count 2 was CCTV footage showing him appearing at that unit on four separate occasions and taking away a box on each occasion. Those four occasions were between 27 May and 24 June 2023.
An examination of both the defendants’ phones showed that they had telephoned each other many times during a short period of time, just before the 1st defendant was intercepted and arrested.
Other incriminating evidence was found on the 2nd defendant’s phone including photographs of the tea-leaf packets identical to those seized and found to contain ‘Ice’.
Both defendants agreed that the estimated street value of the drugs in Count 1 was $6,784,903 and the estimated street value for the drugs in Count 2, $79,653,374.
Mitigation
The 1st defendant is a Vietnamese national, single, 23 years old and a Form 8 recognizance holder in Hong Kong. He has been here since 2021. I have been told he was lured into delivering drugs because his father in Vietnam is ill and money is needed to pay for medical expenses.
The 2nd defendant is also a Vietnamese national and a Form 8 recognizance holder. He is 35 years old and divorced with two daughters living in Vietnam. He arrived in Hong Kong illegally in 2020. He was tempted by the financial reward and foolishly committed these offences.
Both men had until this case had clear records in Hong Kong. Both counsel, Ms Chan and Ms Kong has said all they can possibly say on their behalf in mitigation. Their best mitigation is their pleas of guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Sentencing
I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. They will also apply to Count 1.
With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the most recent authority, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, I now consider the six-steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.
In the approach to sentencing, a number of steps have been identified which the court should take such as assessing the gravity of the offence and applicable guideline, identifying the defendant’s role, where within the guideline the defendant should lie, any aggravating factors, any mitigating factors, and lastly passing a sentence which is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendants.
For the first step, despite Count 1 being a conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug, we have a quantifiable amount. So the first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guideline according to the drug seized.
The latest sentencing guideline for methamphetamine as well as cocaine and heroin is found in the most recent authority of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234.
Those that traffic between 5,000 and 15,000 grammes of ‘Ice’ must expect a starting point of between 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically, if one traffics 13,592 grammes of ‘Ice’, that is the amount here in Count 1, this will attract a starting point of 26 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.
Where one traffics between 15,000 and 30,000 grammes, this will attract a starting point of 27 to 30 years’ imprisonment. The amount of ‘Ice’ in Count 2 exceeds 30,000 grammes, which according to that authority will mean a sentence at the court’s discretion. Therefore exceeding 30,000 grammes or 30 kilogrammes will attract over 30 years’ imprisonment. I repeat here, the 2nd defendant admits trafficking in 158,805 grammes or 158.805 kilogrammes.
I have no evidence these two defendants were key members of a drug trafficking syndicate. I accept that their roles, according to the evidence, were limited to a storekeeper and courier. I will consider therefore the mathematical calculation for Count 1 for an appropriate starting point which I take to be 26 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. For Count 2, when I look at the guidelines going further than 30 kilogrammes, which attract a sentence of over 30 years’ imprisonment and a quantity involved here, I find a starting point of 33 years’ imprisonment appropriate.
The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors, I see no exceptional mitigating factors. There is potentially one aggravating factor and that is they were both Form 8 recognizance holders in Hong Kong.
As per authorities, I would normally enhance a starting point to reflect this and their blatant abuse of the hospitality of Hong Kong society. However, they are both facing very substantial sentences already, I will exercise my discretion and on this occasion, not enhance those substantial starting points any further.
The defendants pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and are both entitled to a one-third discount. For both defendants facing Count 1, I will reduce the starting point of 26 years and 6 months’ imprisonment by one-third and sentence them both to 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
For the 2nd defendant, facing Count 2, I will reduce the starting point of 33 years’ imprisonment by one-third and sentence him to 22 years’ imprisonment.
With the last of the six-steps in mind, I consider their sentences to be very substantial but in light of the circumstances of the offence as well as the defendants, they cannot be said to be unfair, unjust and imbalanced.
Accordingly, for Count 1, the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant are sentenced to 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. For Count 2, the 2nd defendant is sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment. I will order the 2nd defendant’s sentences to be served concurrently, he will serve a total of 22 years’ imprisonment.
