HKSAR v. Hui Chun San

DCCC 566/2026

[2026] HKDC 1882

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 566 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Trafficking in a dangerous drug". The dangerous drug involved was etomidate in liquid form.

Summary of Facts

2.About 9:21 p.m. on 25 June 2025, police officers saw the defendant enter the 7-Eleven Store situated at the Ground Floor, No.99 Argyle Street, Mongkok ("the Store").  He was carrying a black cross-body bag and a plastic bag (E1). PC 27016 followed the defendant into the Store.

3.The defendant walked to the area between the drinks cabinet and the snack shelves. He hid E1 between the goods and cartons.  PC 27879 intercepted him when he exited the Store and escorted him back inside.  E1 was retrieved from the location where PC 27016 had observed the defendant hide it.  E1 was found to contain the following :-

(i)  a bag labelled "Lychee 10" containing 10 cartridges which contained a total of 8.11 grammes of a liquid containing 0.81 grammes of etomidate;

(ii)  a bag labelled "Mango 20" containing 20 cartridges which contained a total of 19.7 grammes of a liquid containing 2.80 grammes of etomidate; and

(iii)  a bag labelled "Passionfruit 20" containing 20 cartridges which contained a total of 19.6 grammes of a liquid containing 2.74 grammes of etomidate.

4.The police arrested the defendant at 9:50 in the same evening.  Under caution, he admitted possession of the drugs contained in E1.

5.The defendant now admits that he possessed the etomidate found for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Mitigation & Sentence

6.The defendant just turned 33 and has a clear record.  Defence solicitor Ms. Mak informed me that the defendant's mother abandoned the family when he was an infant.  His father rarely came home and passed away in 2018.  The defendant was raised by his paternal grandmother.  When she passed away in 2016, her public housing unit was repossessed by the Housing Department.  The defendant became homeless since.  He was staying in a room of an hourly hotel at the time of arrest.

7.In mitigation, Ms. Mak submitted that the defendant was a promising football player.  He played for the U14 Hong Kong team and a district team.  The defendant began his drug abuse in December 2022, during the pandemic.  Prior to his arrest, he worked as a warehouse keeper earning a daily wage of $500, averaging $8,000 to $10,000 per month. 

8.Drug abuse has been a long-term problem in our society.  A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that "drug trafficking" is a serious crime (be it in the capacity of a seller, courier or storekeeper)  and that drug traffickers (even fresh young offenders)  would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment.

9.Regarding the defendant's claim for self-consumption, I have reminded myself of the relevant sentencing principles[1]. Ms. Mak claimed that 20 out of the 50 cartridges found were intended for the defendant's own consumption.  She explained that the defendant was only an occasional user of etomidate and was not addicted.  Prosecuting counsel Mr. Wong objected to the defendant's claim entirely.

10.There is no evidence showing that the defendant was a user of etomidate; not even a vaping device was found on him or in the hotel room rented by him.  Other than his mere assertion, there is insufficient evidence to support his claim for self-consumption.  I reject his claim.

11.At present, there is no clear sentencing tariff for trafficking in etomidate.  The prosecution accepts that the harm profile of etomidate is similar to ketamine[2]. Hence, I will follow the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine laid down by the Court of Appeal in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. For up to 10 grammes, the sentence ranges from 2 to 4 years' imprisonment.

12.In the present case, the defendant trafficked in 6.35 grammes of etomidate.  Applying a strict arithmetical approach, the appropriate starting point is 38 months' imprisonment.  For ease of calculation, I adopt 36 months as the starting point.  With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 24 months.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 24 months' imprisonment.