COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty on 26 February 2026 to two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs before a Magistrate at the Eastern Magistracy. As a result of his pleas of guilty, he has been committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
Both offences were committed on 19 September 2023. The location in Charge 1 was outside the Terminus Supervisor Office and Passenger Enquiry Centre of Ping Tin Bus Station, Lam Tin. In Charge 1, the defendant admitted that he unlawfully trafficked in 1 kilogramme of solid containing 827 grammes of cocaine.
In Charge 2, the defendant admitted that in Room 1015 on the 10th Floor of Ping Yan House, Ping Tin Estate, Lam Tin, Kowloon, he unlawfully trafficked in 1 kilogramme of a mixture containing 780 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, 25.84 grammes of a solid containing 11.31 grammes of cocaine, 76.19 grammes of a solid containing 63.07 grammes of ketamine, 26.3 grammes of a solid containing 15.2 grammes of cocaine and 1.15 grammes of ketamine and 1.82 grammes of cannabis in herbal form.
The defendant has admitted the Summary of Facts and the amended Summary of Facts now dated 4 August 2026. On 19 September 2023, the Customs Officers conducted an anti-narcotic operation at the Ping Tin Estate, Lam Tin, Kowloon. At about 8.26 pm, Customs Officers saw the defendant holding a brown paper bag (“the Paper Bag”) outside Ping Yan House.
Feeling suspicious, Senior Customs Officer 1593 (“PW1”) notified other officers via the beat radio to intercept the defendant. However, the defendant suddenly walked fast and got into the rear seat of the taxi (“the Taxi”) from the opposite side. PW1 immediately went up and boarded the rear seat of the Taxi from the near side.
Upon getting into the Taxi, PW1 revealed his Customs identity. He then told the defendant he suspected the defendant had contrabands in his possession and that the defendant should cooperate by alighting the Taxi. The defendant, however, pushed PW1 away and fled the Taxi. PW1 managed to get hold of the defendant, but the defendant put up a fierce struggle, escaped and ran.
PW1 and other officers chased after the defendant. When the defendant arrived at the bus terminus of Ping Tin Estate, he lost balance and fell down. At this juncture, another Customs Officer 18423 (“PW2”) saw a black substance in the form of a block (“E1”) dropping out from the Paper Bag. E1 was the quantity of drugs stated in Charge 1. PW2 and other officers immediately went up to subdue the defendant. The defendant again put up a struggle.
At about 8.35, the defendant was finally subdued and arrested. Under caution, when asked why he ran away, the defendant admitted that he had dangerous drugs in his bag and was scared that he would be arrested. PW2 then took him to a nearby government vehicle for further investigation.
At about 8.40 pm, PW2 showed the block (E1) to the defendant inside the government vehicle. Under caution, the defendant admitted, inter alia, that E1 was cocaine. It belonged to him and he took it downstairs. He was to deliver the cocaine to Tuen Mun by taxi and receive $3,000 for each distribution.
Upon the search of the defendant, two mobile phones and a key were found. The key was to the premises as stated in Charge 2. At 9.15 pm, the defendant was escorted to the premises and with the key seized from the defendant, the officers entered the premises. Upon search, the drugs in Charge 2 were found contained in 46 separate plastic bags, also found was an electronic scale.
Under caution, the defendant stated, inter alia, the white powder was cocaine. It belonged to him and was given to him in the morning. The other substances were dangerous drugs, they belonged to him and he would wait for the call for the distribution later. He would receive $3,000 for each distribution. He said Room 1015 was owned by him.
The CCTV of Ping Yan House on 19 September 2023 captured the defendant, carrying the Paper Bag, went into the lift on the 10th floor of the building. He then left the building at 8.25 pm. In addition, the defendant’s struggle with PW1 inside and near the Taxi was also captured by the dash camera of the Taxi.
Having examined the two mobile phones of the defendant, the officers found from one of the phones 15 photographs showing a dangerous drug substance being put on silver plates, plastic trays and an electronic scale. The defendant’s fingerprint was lifted from the Paper Bag.
The estimated street value of all the drugs seized were as follows: cocaine, $1,156,369.29; ketamine, $38,083.52; heroin, $786,000; herbal cannabis, $323.96. The total value of all the drugs seized was therefore $1,980,776.77.
Defendant’s Background and Mitigation
Mr Michael Leung, counsel for the defendant, has submitted written mitigation on the defendant’s behalf. The defendant is now aged 21. At the time of commission of the offences, he was 19 years old. He has a clear record. He has attained secondary level 4 education. He is single and worked as an air-conditioning apprentice, earning $6,900 per month. He lived with his father. His parents were divorced when the defendant was in Primary 2.
I have read and taken into account the letter of mitigation written by the defendant’s basketball coach and his paternal aunt. It is clear from the letters the defendant’s passion is basketball, where he took solace and happiness away from his broken home. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the basketball courts were closed and the defendant lost his happy place and his way and succumbed to trafficking in dangerous drugs.
The letters state that the defendant is a young man, not inherently bad, but someone who simply lost his way. The defendant’s reasons for committing these offences is because at the time of the offence, the defendant had three cats. They required medical care and surgery. They, however, could not be met with the defendant’s modest income. Therefore, he was lured by undesirable peers to earn quick money and committed the present offence.
Sentence
The approach to sentencing in drug trafficking cases are the ones laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and complemented in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150.
The application of the principles and steps are as follows.
The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. The revised tariff case for the drugs heroin and cocaine is set out in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKCA 234. The tariff case for the drug ecstasy and ketamine is set out in the authority of Secretary of Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1.
I turn to consider, firstly, the total amount of drugs in the two charges. The quantity of cocaine is 827 grammes in Charge 1 and in Charge 2 it is 11.31 grammes plus 15.2 grammes, which is 261.51 grammes when added together with the cocaine in Charge 1 amounts to 853.51 grammes of cocaine.
The total amount of heroin is 780 grammes. The total amount of ketamine is 64.22 grammes. Herbal cannabis is 1.82 grammes. I adopt the combined and conversion test to convert all the drugs in both charges to that of cocaine as that is the more potent drug.
Pursuant to the tariff, where an amount of 853.51 grammes of cocaine is trafficked, that falls within the band of between 500 to 1,500 grammes. The starting point should be between 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment. By itself, that amount would, arithmetically speaking, attract a starting point of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
Pursuant to the tariff, where an amount of 780 grammes of heroin is trafficked, that falls within the band of between 500 to 1,500 grammes. The starting point should be between 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment. By itself, that amount would, arithmetically speaking, attract a starting point of 17 years’ imprisonment. In converting this to cocaine, that would remain the same at 780 grammes.
Pursuant to the tariff, where an amount of 64.22 grammes of ketamine is trafficked, that falls within the band of between 50 to 300 grammes. The starting point should be between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment. By itself, that amount would, arithmetically speaking, attract a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment. Converting this amount to cocaine would be 25 grammes of cocaine.
The quantity of herbal cannabis is of such a small amount such that it can be neglected.
The total quantity of cocaine trafficked, therefore, in both offences is 853.51 plus 780 plus 25, which is 1,658.51 grammes. This amount falls within the band of 1,500 to 5,000 grammes, where a starting point of between 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. By itself, that amount would, arithmetically speaking, attract a starting point of 20 years’ imprisonment.
The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence. The defendant was a storage keeper of the drugs and a courier delivering drugs for remuneration. It is noted that there were no resealable plastic bags or nor was there a large amount of money found.
The third step is to identify where in the relevant band the defendant came, given the circumstance of the offence and the role of the defendant. Taking into account the third band of where in the guideline the defendant should lie, I consider that an appropriate starting point should remain at 20 years’ imprisonment.
The fourth step is the consideration of any aggravating factors. The aggravating factor in the present case is that the defendant was trafficking in three types of drugs. As observed in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong [2014] 2 HKLRD 1, there are two possible aggravating factors. At paragraph 23, the Court of Appeal said:
“We have also taken into consideration the fact the seizure of two or more types of dangerous drugs at the same time, even though separately packed and not in the prepared mixture, may lead to two possible aggravating factors.”
Paragraph 24, it went on to say:
“It is said that one aggravating feature is the ability of the trafficker to cater to a wider market.”
Paragraph 25:
“More important is the effect on users of combinations of dangerous drugs.”
In those circumstances, given the quantity of different types of dangerous drugs, I consider an enhancement to the sentence of 6 months and therefore the starting point would be one of 20 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
The fifth step is to consider all mitigating factors, bearing in mind that in this particular branch of sentencing, personal circumstances would generally count for little. The most significant mitigating factor is the defendant’s plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity and he will benefit from a one-third discount to his sentence.
The starting point being 20 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, that term is to be reduced to one of 13 years and 8 months’ imprisonment to which he shall serve in total.
Defendant, you are charged with two offences and the defendant must be sentenced separately for each offence and thereafter to reflect the total sentence of 13 years and 8 months.
Defendant, you were trafficking in 827 grammes of cocaine in Charge 1. That amount falls in the band of 500 to 1,500 grammes which warrants a sentence of between 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment after trial. I accordingly take a starting point of 17 years and after a one-third discount, reduce that term to 11 years 4 months.
In Charge 2, defendant was trafficking in 26.51 grammes of cocaine, 780 grammes of heroin and 64.22 grammes of ketamine equivalent to 25 grammes of cocaine. The total narcotic in Charge 2 amounts to 831.51 grammes of cocaine. That amount falls in the band of between 500 to 1,500 grammes which warrants a sentence of between 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment. By itself, that would attract a starting point of 17 years’ imprisonment as a starting point.
Giving the defendant a one-third discount for his plea of guilty, that would reduce the sentence to 11 years 4 months on Charge 2. To reflect the total term of 13 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, I order 2 years and 4 months of Charge 2 to run consecutively to Charge 1.
The sixth step is to observe the overall sentence to ensure that it was fair, just and balanced and all the circumstances of the offences and the defendant, I so do.
