HKSAR v. Cheung Hok Hei and Another

HCCC 225/2024

[2026] HKCFI 5764

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 225 OF 2024

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The 1st defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of dangerous drug and one count of trafficking in dangerous drug. The 2nd defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drug. They were charged jointly under the trafficking in dangerous drug charge.

In the evening of 15 April 2022, the police conducted an anti-drug operation in the vicinity of a targeted flat in Cheung Yew Building, Tai Kok Tsui. At around 7.25 pm, the 1st defendant was seen leaving from the flat and was intercepted by the police.

A body search was conducted on the 1st defendant and a resealable plastic bag of suspected drug was found in his pocket. The drugs were later confirmed to be 0.21 gramme of a solid containing 0.16 gramme of cocaine.

The 1st defendant was then escorted to the flat, which was found to be locked within. The police broke into the flat and the 2nd defendant was seen climbing out of the window of the bedroom, moving towards another room. When police officers knocked on the door of that other room, the 2nd defendant opened the door and surrendered.

Upon search of the targeted flat, a total of 45,112 grammes of a solid containing 43,881 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride was found. The drugs were found contained in plastic bags placed in different rooms. Paraphernalia, including electronic scales, vacuum sealers, piles of plastic bags and Ziploc bags were also found. The estimated street value of the drugs found in the flat amounts to over HK$25.8 million.

The 1st defendant is now 30 years old, he is single and received education up to Form 4 level. He used to operate a delivery business and he himself would do the delivery work. He became unemployed in 2020 as his business closed down during the pandemic. He has five previous convictions, all unrelated to drugs.

In his mitigation, Mr Sean, counsel for the 1st defendant, submitted that the 1st defendant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and should be given the full one-third discount. He also submitted that the 1st defendant’s role is relatively lower as he received instructions from the 2nd defendant. Mr Sean acknowledged that the quantity of drugs involved in the present case is huge, and applying the relevant tariff, the sentence should be above 30 years’ imprisonment. He asked this court to impose a sentence as lenient as possible within the relevant guidelines and not to impose extra sentence for the possession charge in view of the heavy sentence for the trafficking charge.

Mr Sean also submitted mitigation letters written by the 1st defendant, his parents, the 1st defendant’s sister, and they all express that the 1st defendant is now very remorseful and urged this court to pass the 1st defendant a lenient sentence.

The 2nd defendant is now 30 years old. He received formal education up to Form 5 level. He worked as a construction and transportation worker but had become unemployed since January 2022. He has been suffering from epilepsy and needs to take daily medication. He is single and was living with his parents and elder sister in a public housing unit. His father passed away in December 2024 while he was in remand for the present offence. He has a clear record at the time of the offence.

Mr Sheung, counsel for the 2nd defendant, submitted in mitigation that the 2nd defendant received instructions from a person named Jackie on receiving packaging and delivering the drugs. He was the one who purchased the paraphernalia and they were used for repackaging the drugs.

Mr Sheung submitted that, notwithstanding the above, there is no evidence that the 2nd defendant delivered or distributed to actual buyers or that he arranged any form of purchase. Relying on HKSAR v Qaiser Muhammad [2024] HKCFI 755, Mr Sheung submitted that the 2nd defendant’s acts can be regarded as part of storing of the drugs and urged this court to regard the 2nd defendant as a mere storekeeper or courier.

It is the submission of Mr Sheung that in view of the 2nd defendant’s role, the appropriate starting point should be 30 to 31 years’ imprisonment. Mr Sheung also asked the court to give the 2nd defendant a slight reduction on sentence as his father has passed away during his remand, so the 2nd defendant may yet have a chance to spend some time with his mother, who is of high age and suffering from serious diabetes. The 2nd defendant’s family members, relatives, godparents, teacher, classmates and social workers wrote letters to the court urging this court to accord leniency to the 2nd defendant.

In considering the appropriate sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs, this court should adopt the six-step approach as set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. The sentencing tariff for trafficking in ‘Ice’ was provided in the judgment of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

As submitted by both counsel, the highest band of the starting point for trafficking in ‘Ice’ is from 15,000 to 30,000 grammes, which attracts a range of sentence of 27 to 30 years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal stated that, for a quantity above this band, the sentence will fall within the discretion of the court, which means that the sentence will be between 30 to 35 years’ imprisonment taking into account the overall circumstances of the cases and the practical ceiling of 35 years’ imprisonment. In the present case, the quantity of ‘Ice’ involved is 43,881 grammes, which is substantially above the upper limit of the highest band.

Regarding the roles of the defendants, the trafficking acts included transporting, storing, repackaging and delivering of the drugs. In addition, it is in the evidence and admitted by the defendants that they will receive a reward of 1 million each after dealing with all the drugs. I am of the view that the situation of the present case is different from that of Qaiser Muhammad and the roles of both defendants were more than mere storekeepers or couriers.

As I mentioned above, for this level of quantity of drugs, the appropriate starting point is in the discretion of the sentencing court taking into account of all the circumstances, which, in my view, include the role played by the defendants. In the circumstances, I will adopt a starting point of 31 years and 6 months for Charge 2 in respect of both the defendants. I note that the defendants committed the present offence while on bail but I accept the submission of counsel that, in view of the already heavy sentence faced by the defendants, no enhancement should be given because of that.

For Charge 1, I will adopt a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment, and I accept counsel’s submission that the sentence shall be concurrent to Charge 2. Apart from the defendant’s guilty plea, I do not see any valid mitigating factor.

In conclusion, for Charge 1, the 1st defendant is sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment. For Charge 2, the 1st and 2nd defendants are sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment. The sentences of the 1st defendant for Charges 1 and 2 are to run wholly concurrently.