COURT: Defendant, you pleaded guilty on 14 May 2026 to two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs before a Magistrate at the Eastern Magistracy. As a result of your pleas of guilty, you have been committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
Both offences were committed on 7 December 2024 at Shek On House, Shek Lei Estate in Kwai Chung. In Charge 1, the offence was committed in the lift lobby on the 22nd Floor and in Charge 2, it was inside Room 2205.
In Charge 1, defendant admitted that he unlawfully trafficked in 6.65 grammes of a solid containing 6.65 grammes of cocaine. In Charge 2, defendant admitted that he unlawfully trafficked in 97.22 grammes of a solid containing 85.38 grammes of cocaine and 172.87 grammes of a solid containing 148.62 grammes of ketamine.
Facts
The Summary of Facts dated 13 April 2026 was admitted by the defendant. On 7 December 2024, police officers laid ambush at staircase No. 2 on the 22nd Floor at Shek On House, Shek Lei Estate at 8 Wai Kek Street, Kwai Chung, New Territories.
At around 8.35 pm on the same day, DPC13150 (“PW1”) spotted the defendant walking towards the lift lobby from the direction of Rooms 2202 to 2205. PW1 therefore intercepted the defendant. Upon body search of the defendant, PW1 found cash of $14,100, four keys, two mobile phones and one resealable plastic bag containing 23 resealable plastic bags containing 6.65 grammes of a solid containing 6.65 grammes of cocaine (“Exhibit E1”) in the pocket of the defendant’s trousers.
At around 8.52 pm on the same day, PW1 arrested the defendant for trafficking in a dangerous drug. Under verbal caution, defendant stated that the dangerous drugs belonged to him and he sold them to earn money. At around 8.55 pm on the same day, the defendant was brought to Room 2205, 22nd Floor, Shek On House (“the Flat”) for further investigation.
In the presence of the defendant, DPC20689 (“PW2”) opened the door to the Flat using one of the keys seized from the defendant. The drugs, as stated in Charge 2, were found contained within 233 plastic bags in the Flat. All the cocaine was found from the desk inside the bedroom, whilst the ketamine was found on the top bunk of a bunk bed. Also found in the Flat were, amongst others, a pair of scissors, two electronic scales, one plastic bag, a roll of plastic wraps, and five resealable plastic bags, each containing multiple resealable plastic bags, and one paper bag containing cash of $10,160.
The defendant was arrested in the Flat. Under verbal caution, he stated all the dangerous drugs were repackaged by him to earn money. At the subsequent video-recorded interview, under remind caution, the defendant stated that he had been unemployed for almost one year. On the day before he met a friend by the name of “Ah Keung” while he was drinking and was offered a quick cash job. He was given the dangerous drugs, electronic scales, and plastic bags. Ah Keung instructed the defendant to repackage the drugs and he was promised a reward of $20,000 after selling the drugs. The defendant was on his way to meet Ah Keung when he was intercepted leaving the Flat.
The estimated street value of the cocaine seized was around $76,864, whereas that of the ketamine seized was around $81,768.
Defendant’s Background and Mitigation
Mr David Ma, counsel on behalf of the defendant, has submitted written mitigation. The defendant is now 32 years of age. He is single. He has obtained Secondary 3 level education.
He was a waiter previously and he has two previous convictions. One is similar for trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2008, which is 18 years ago, in which he was sentenced to rehabilitation centre. Furthermore, he was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs in 2023, in which he was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years.
Sentence
The approach to sentencing in dangerous drug 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, cocaine and ‘Ice’ 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.
Pursuant to the tariff, when an amount of 92.03 grammes of cocaine is trafficked, that falls within the bracket of 50 to 200 grammes, attracting a starting point of between 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment. This amount by itself would, arithmetically speaking, attract a starting point of 9 years. This amount is the cocaine as trafficked total in Charges 1 and 2.
Pursuant to the tariff where the amount of 148.62 grammes of cocaine is trafficked, that falls within the bracket of between 50 and 300 grammes, attracting a starting point of between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment. This would by itself would, arithmetically speaking, attract a starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment.
In arriving at the total amount of drugs in the two charges, I apply the combined approach and convert the total narcotic to that of cocaine, cocaine being the more potent drug. Therefore, if the amount of ketamine is converted to cocaine, that would amount to about 39 grammes.
The total quantity of the drug cocaine trafficked in both charges is therefore 92.03 grammes plus 39 grammes, which is a total of 131 grammes. That amount falls within the bracket of 50 to 200 grammes, where a starting point of between 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. The amount of 131 grammes by itself would, arithmetically speaking, attract a starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment.
The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence. The defendant has admitted to storing the drugs and using paraphernalia to package the drugs. He also admitted that he repackaged the drugs for reselling. I consider the defendant’s role to be no higher than that of a courier or storekeeper.
The third step is to identify where in the relevant band the defendant comes. Taking into account the third band of where in the guidelines the defendant’s role should be, I consider that an appropriate starting point should remain at 10 years’ imprisonment.
The fourth step is the consideration of any aggravating factors. The defendant has two drug-related previous convictions. One of them is of a similar offence for trafficking in dangerous drugs. As the offence was committed some 18 years ago, I exercise my discretion not to enhance the starting point. However, the aggravating factor in the present case is that the defendant was trafficking in two types of drugs.
As observed in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong [2014] 2 HKLRD 1, there are two possible aggravating factors where the court stated at paragraph 23:
“We have taken into consideration the fact that the seizure of two or more types of dangerous drugs at the same time, even though separately packed and not in a prepared mixture, may lead to two possible aggravating features.
24. It has been said that one aggravating feature is the ability of the trafficker to cater to a wider market.
25. More important is the effect on users of combinations of dangerous drugs.”
I therefore enhance the defendant’s sentence from 10 years to 10 years and 3 months for this aggravating factor.
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. As a result, he benefits from a one-third discount to his sentence.
The starting point being 10 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, that is to be reduced to 6 years and 10 months’ imprisonment to which he shall serve totally.
I now turn to deal with the individual offences and sentence him accordingly. The defendant is charged with two offences and the defendant must be sentenced separately for both offences and thereafter to reflect the total sentence as outlined above.
In Charge 1, the defendant was trafficking in 6.65 grammes of cocaine. That amount falls in the band of between 0 to 10 grammes, which warrants a sentence of between 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment after trial. I would accordingly take 3 years’ imprisonment as the appropriate starting point after trial and after one-third discount, that term is reduced to be 2 years’ imprisonment.
In Charge 2, the defendant was trafficking in 148.62 grammes of ketamine, which is equivalent to 39 grammes of cocaine, and 85.38 grammes of cocaine. The total amount of cocaine trafficked in Charge 2 is therefore 124.38 grammes. That amount falls in the band of between 50 to 200 grammes, which warrants a sentence of between 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment. I take 9 years 9 months as the appropriate starting point and after one-third discount, reduce that term to 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
To reflect the term of 6 years and 10 months to which you are so sentenced, I order 4 months of Charge 1 to run consecutive to Charge 2 and the remainder to run concurrently.
In observing the sixth step, I have observed the overall sentence passed and I am satisfied it is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
I turn lastly to deal with the suspended sentence. Defendant was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years on 24 May 2023 for possession of dangerous drugs. 18 months after he was sentenced for that offence, he committed this offence in December 2024. He therefore has breached his suspended sentence by committing this offence in the period of suspension.
I therefore activate the suspended sentence of 4 months imprisonment and order that to run consecutive to his present term of 6 years and 10 months, which makes a total of 7 years and 2 months’ imprisonment to which the defendant is to serve.
