HKSAR v. Leung Tsz Fung Ringo

HCCC 194/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 194 OF 2026

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.The Defendant was originally charged with a single charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs[1] involving methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as “ICE”) and cocaine.  He pleaded guilty to that charge in the Magistracy and was committed, on 26 May 2026, to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

2.Subsequently, the prosecution and the defence came to an agreement that the cocaine involved in this case was for the Defendant’s self-consumption.  Therefore pursuant to this court’s directions on 15 September 2026, the parties agreed to amend the single charge into two separate charges to reflect the trafficking of the ICE and the possession of the cocaine.  The use of this “alternative charge procedure” was explained in HKSAR v Gurung Laxman [2017] 3 HKLRD 483 and was re-affirmed in HKSAR v Choi Chun Wo [2018] 5 HKLRD 717 in which the Court of Appeal held:-

“39.  It was also made clear in Wong Suet Hau, and elaborated upon in HKSAR v Gurung Laxman [2017] 3 HKLRD 483, that where the drugs for trafficking and for self-consumption are each quantifiable then the defendant should be dealt with by the separate offences of trafficking in a dangerous drug and possession of a dangerous drug, and sentenced accordingly...”

3.Consequently, the Defendant has now pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug[2] and one charge of possession of a dangerous drug.  The Defendant confirmed his pleas to the amended charges and admission to the amended Summary of Facts before me, and his convictions were duly recorded. 

4.Particulars of Charge 1 are that the Defendant, on 16 March 2024, outside No. 24 Jordan Road, Kowloon, in Hong Kong (hereinafter “the Location”), unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 17.6 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 17.4 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as “ICE”).

5.Particulars of Charge 2 are that the Defendant, on 16 March 2024, outside that same Location, had in his possession[3] a dangerous drug, namely 4.28 grammes of a solid containing 3.09 grammes of cocaine.

FACTS

6.The facts admitted can be summarized as follows.

7.At around 8.35 p.m. on 16 March 2024, uniformed police officers were patrolling along Parkes Street towards the direction of Jordan Road.  They saw the Defendant walking towards them and acting furtively, they therefore intercepted him at the Location.  The Defendant was holding a jacket in his left hand at the time.

8.When the Defendant was intercepted, he immediately threw the jacket to a male on his left.  That male caught the jacket and threw it back to the Defendant immediately.  The Defendant then threw the jacket onto the ground and a wrapped object fell out from the jacket.  The Defendant was subdued and the other male fled the scene.

9.The wrapped object was seized and it was found to contain 9 plastic bags containing the drugs as particularized in the charges. 

10.The Defendant was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  Under caution upon arrest, he asserted that the drugs were for his own consumption.

11.The Defendant was escorted back to Yau Ma Tei Police Station where he was further searched. The police found a mobile phone with SIM card and cash of HK$4,470 on him.

12.A cautioned video recorded interview was conducted with the Defendant between 12.28 a.m. and 12.44 a.m. on 17 March 2024, in which Defendant asserted, inter alia, the following:

(1)  Regarding the drugs found, he said they were ICE and cocaine. The 9 packets were ICE and the 1 packet was cocaine.

(2)  He had bought the drugs at around 6 to 7 p.m. at Nam Cheong Street Park from "Ah Keung".  The ICE (of around 20g) was worth $4,000 whereas the cocaine (of around 5g) was worth $500.

(3)  He denied buying the drugs under instruction or was delivering the drugs for reward.

(4)  The cash found on him was his savings obtained from his disability allowance.

(5)  He did not know the male to whom he had thrown the jacket. He threw the jacket to that male because he had drugs hidden in the jacket and was frightened.

13.A house search was later conducted at the Defendant’s residence at Jordan Road and no contraband was found.

14.In March 2024, the average retail price for crack cocaine was HK$ l,293 per gramme whereas the average retail price for ICE was HK$ 538 per gramme. The ICE seized could have been sold at street level at around HK$9,469 and the cocaine could have been sold for HK$5,534.

15.The Defendant now admits and accepts that he knowingly possessed the “ICE” seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.  It is agreed between the parties that the cocaine seized in this case was for the Defendant’s own consumption.

PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

16.The Defendant has 30 previous convictions, two are related to dangerous drugs and they date back to 2011 and 2016 respectively.  But they were not for drug trafficking.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

17.Ms Emma Tsang, counsel for the Defendant, provided the court with written submissions for mitigation. 

18.In summary, the Defendant is 51 years old.  He was born in Hong Kong and educated to Form 4 level.  He was unemployed at the time of arrest and relied on CSSA and disability allowance to maintain his living.  He suffers from liver cirrhosis, diabetes and septal defect of the heart.  He is also taking medication for depression and insomnia.

19.He has a daughter aged 23.  His parents passed away in the past year while he was held in custody.  He regrets not being able to rebuild his relationship with his parents before they passed away, which weighs heavily on him.  He has now found Christianity and vows to reform and lead a law-abiding life in the future.

20.Ms Tsang informed the court that the Defendant is remorseful for the offences and pleads for leniency.  His remorse is shown by his timely guilty plea.

SENTENCING

Charge 1

21.The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for trafficking in dangerous drugs is life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

22.The 6-step sentencing approach introduced by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[4], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[5], are applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff

23.Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question.

24.For the 17.4 grammes of ICE, the sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 for ICE are applied and it would fall under the band of “10 - 70 g” with “7 to 11 years” imprisonment.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

25.The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the Defendant. 

26.I accept Ms Tsang’s submission that the Defendant in this case is mere courier.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

27.On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline band, 17.4 grammes of ICE, would lead to 7 years and 5 months imprisonment.

28.In determining the appropriate overall starting point at this step, I take into consideration the role and the culpability of the Defendant, being a mere courier, I shall therefore adopt 7 years and 5 months imprisonment as the notional sentence after trial as the starting point at this step.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

29.The Defendant has no previous convictions for drug-trafficking and his two previous convictions for possession of dangerous drugs date back quite some years.  Therefore, I shall not treat them as aggravating factors in assessing Charge 1.

30.There being no other aggravating factors, the above analysis results in the 7 years and 5 months imprisonment by this step.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

31.Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the only strong mitigating factor in this case is the Defendant’s guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the sentence down to 4 years and 11 months imprisonment.

Step 6: Totality

32.I shall deal with this issue after addressing Charge 2.

Charge 2

33.The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for possession of dangerous drugs is a fine of $1,000,000 and to imprisonment for 7 years.

34.Since the Defendant is going to be sentenced in the same proceedings for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs to imprisonment for more than 9 months, s.54A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134 does not apply, and this court need not first consider a DATC report before sentencing him on Charge 2.

35.As the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Muhammad Waqas [2019] 4 HKLRD 323 reiterated at para.61:-

“In Mok Cho Tik the Court of Appeal followed the three-step process to the sentencing of offenders for this offence that was laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Wan Sheung Sum.  The first step is the assessment of an appropriate starting point for the length of the custodial sentence where the court determines that a custodial sentence is appropriate. The second step is the enhancement of that starting point to allow for the latent risk that the drugs, or a part of them, might end up being disseminated to others.  The third step is the discounting of the final starting point to allow for any mitigation.

36.As stated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Mok Cho-tik [2001] 1 HKC 261, the starting point for mere possession of a quantity of dangerous drugs which a bona fide user would normally have in his possession should be in the range of 12 to 18 months.  But that was not the “be all and end all” of the appropriate starting point.  The quantity would be the main governing factor which would determine where the starting point would lie.

37.In Mok Cho-tik (supra) at para.17, the Court explained:-

“…Obviously the quantity will be the main governing factor which will determine where the starting point will lie. If an offender is a persistent offender he can expect the starting point to be higher than it otherwise would be. The existence of the risk factor and the degree of risk is not a matter of mathematics upon which this court should provide a tariff. Amongst the obvious factors to be taken into account are whether the offender is in employment; whether the drugs are kept in a place to which others have access; whether the offender has convictions for trafficking; and of course the quantity of drugs. The full circumstances of the risk must be assessed.”

38.In the present case, the quantity is neither large nor excessive, it does concern a situation of self-consumption but the court cannot ignore the “latent risk” in this case especially given the “ICE” that was being trafficked. 

39.Looking at all the circumstances of this case, I consider 12 months imprisonment to be the appropriate starting point for step 1.

40.For the latent risk factor, I accept Ms Tsang’s submissions that the risk is limited, I shall therefore enhance the sentence by 3 months for this factor.

41.This is the third time the Defendant is convicted of possession of dangerous drugs, but I accept the previous two occasions were in 2011 and 2016 respectively.  For him being a repeat offender, but taking into account the lapse of time between these convictions, I will exercise my discretion and enhance the sentence by a further 3 months.  Resulting in a total sentence of 18 months imprisonment by step 2.

42.The Defendant is entitled to the full one-third discount for his guilty plea for this charge as this was the first opportunity he could plead to it, this therefore brings the sentence down to 12 months imprisonment.

OVERRALL TOTALITY

43.Given the proximity in time and location of his commission of the two offences, bearing in mind that even if the cocaine in Charge 2 was added to the drugs in Charge 1, the overall sentence after plea would be in the region of around 5 years and 2 months imprisonment for a single charge of trafficking.

44.In all the circumstances, I am persuaded by Ms Tsang as to totality and I will order the sentences of Charges 1 and 2 to be served wholly concurrently.

45.I consider the sentences imposed for Charges 1 and 2 to be just, fair and balanced in all the circumstances.

FINAL SENTENCE

46.Accordingly, the Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years and 11 months.

Mr NG Wing-kit, Senior Public Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Ms Emma Tsang, instructed by C.F. Lee & Co., assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant