HKSAR v. Li Ho Man

HCCC 242/2026
[2026] HKCFI 5607

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 242 OF 2026

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.The defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug[1] and was committed, on 13 July 2026, to the Court of First Instance for sentence.  The defendant confirmed his plea and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and his conviction was duly recorded.

2.The particulars of the charge are that the defendant, on 17 September 2024, outside Circle K convenience store, Ground Floor, No. 71 Ham Tin Street, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, Hong Kong (hereinafter the “OK Store”), unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 1,954 grammes of a solid containing 1,825 grammes of cocaine.

FACTS

3.The facts admitted can be summarized as follows.

4.On 12 September 2024, Customs officers conducted an operation in the warehouse of Buyandship Limited (“Buyandship”) on 10/F, Kwai Shun Industrial Centre, 51-63 Container Port Road, in Kwai Chung. In the presence of a Buyandship Deputy Operation Manager, Customs Officer conducted examination on an inbound parcel originated from the USA.  Upon examination, 3 packets of substance which yielded positive result of cocaine was found inside the parcel, which was later confirmed to contain a total of 1,954 grammes of a solid containing 1,825 grammes of cocaine.

5.Customs officers then conducted a controlled delivery of the parcel on 16 and 17 September 2024 at the OK Store which was the designated location for collection by the consignee of the parcel.

6.At about 1011 hours on 17 September 2024, the Defendant appeared at the cashier counter of the OK store. He requested collection of the parcel and told the salesperson of the OK store the pick-up code.  After verifying the parcel information with the Defendant, the parcel was handed to the Defendant.  The Defendant then sought to put the parcel into his backpack and walked out of the OK Store.

7.At that point, the Defendant was intercepted by Customs Officers and was arrested for suspected contravention of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

8.Under caution, the Defendant stated that he knew nothing about the parcel nor it consignor/consignee.  He also said he did not know what was inside the parcel and that the parcel belonged to his friend “阿潤”.  阿潤 did not instruct him how to handle the parcel, but just directed him to wander on the street for a while.  He would get HK$5,000 as a reward after he passed the parcel to 阿潤.  In the subsequent Video recorded interview, he refused to answer any further questions.

9.Examination of the Defendant’s mobile phone under a search warrant and passcode provided by the defendant revealed various WhatsApp messages between the defendant and someone called “潤”, it appeared that “潤” was giving instructions to the defendant regarding the collection and delivery of the parcel and also the amount of reward for the delivery.

10.The estimated market value of the cocaine involved in this case was about HK$1,614,004 (HK$826 / gramme).

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

11.The defendant is of clear record.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

12.Ms Manyi Tsang, counsel for the Defendant, helpfully provided the Court with written submissions for mitigation. 

13.In summary, the Defendant was only 17 years old and a form 5 student at the time of the offence.  He is now 19 years old.  He was introduced to a man named “阿潤” who lured the Defendant into committing the present offence for a small reward of HK$5,000.

14.Ms Tsang submitted that the Defendant’s role was passive and that he awaited instructions from “阿潤” for even the simplest of tasks.  The defendant was of a young age and was taking advantage of by drug syndicates.  He had no control over any part of the operation and did not participate in the importation of the parcel.

15.Upon arrest, he was co-operative with the police by providing them with the password to his phone and provided information about “阿潤” later.  This shows his genuine remorse.

16.Various school certificates and awards were submitted for the Court’s consideration together with various mitigation letters (including from the Defendant himself and his family).  He clearly has a loving and supportive family as can be seen from the various family members that attended the hearing.  Since his incarceration he has already completed a hair-dressing course.

17.These materials have been carefully considered.

SENTENCING

18.Drug trafficking is a very serious offence.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment is life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

19.The 6-step sentencing approach introduced by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[2], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[3], are applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff band

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

21.This case concerns 1,825 grammes of cocaine, the sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 for cocaine are applied and it would fall under the band of “1,500 – 5,000 g” attracting a sentence of “20 to 24 years” imprisonment.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

22.Step two is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant. 

23.The facts admitted in this case show that the Defendant was a mere courier.  I also agree with Ms Tsang that the Defendant was in fact exploited by a drug syndicate.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

24.On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline band: 1,825 grammes of cocaine would lead 20 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

25.In determining the appropriate overall starting point, I must also take into consideration the role and the culpability of the defendant.  His role was a mere courier.  I shall therefore adopt 20 years and 4 months’ imprisonment as the notional sentence after trial as starting point at this step.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

26.Although this case concerns a parcel of drugs being sent to Hong Kong from overseas.  I accept Ms Tsang’s submission that the Defendant’s knowledge and involvement was limited to following instructions to physically collect the parcel from the OK Store.  As there is no evidence to suggest that he knew where the parcel came from, therefore the “international element” will be not treated as an aggravating factor against this Defendant.

27.There is no other aggravating factor applicable in this case.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

28.I have considered the mitigation advanced on behalf of the Defendant together with the mitigation letters.

29.Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the only strong mitigating factor 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 13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

Step 6: Totality

30.This case does not engage the situation of multiple counts or multiple aggravating factors.  The sentence is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

FINAL SENTENCE

31.Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

Mr Antony Leung, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Ms Herbert Elizabeth Anne instructed by Chaudhry Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the Defendant