HKSAR v. Nguyen Dang Manh
|
HCCC 431/2025 [2026] HKCFI 5847 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 431 OF 2025
_________________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE _________________________________ INTRODUCTION 1.The Defendant is charged with one count of “Attempting to Traffic in a Dangerous Drug”, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. The particulars of the offence are that the Defendant, on 14 May 2024, at the entrance of Nos. 69, 71 & 71A of Tai Nan Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, attempted to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely 64.4819 kilogrammes of cannabis in herbal form. 2.On 11 December 2025, the Defendant has pleaded guilty to the charge in the Magistrates’ Court and he was thus committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. 3.This morning, the Defendant appeared before me, having confirmed his plea and the admission to the facts. Before sentencing, I have considered the admitted Summary of Facts, the antecedents of the Defendant, the mitigation submissions filed on his behalf, the authorities relied upon by both parties, and the relevant legal principles. In determining the appropriate sentence, I adopt the structured six-step approach set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. THE FACTS 4.In May 2024, Hong Kong Customs intercepted an inbound seaborne cargo shipment from Thailand containing over 64 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis with an estimated market value of more than HK$17.2 million. Customs replaced the narcotics with dummies to conduct a controlled delivery. 5.On 14 May 2024, the shipment was transported through a series of handoffs to Tai Nan Street in Sham Shui Po. The Defendant was directed by an unknown Vietnamese man via the “Zalo” App to coordinate the unloading and moving of the pallets for a promised reward of HK$500. 6.Customs officers intercepted and arrested the Defendant as he cut open the packaging and attempted to move the boxes into a residential building. Upon investigation, the Defendant’s mobile phones confirmed communications with the delivery driver and the unknown recruiter. 7.The Defendant has agreed and admitted to attempting to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug. THE ANTECEDENTS OF THE DEFENDANT 8.The Defendant has a clear record at the time of the offence for which he was charged. In December 2025, the Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of illegal entry into Hong Kong and was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. 9.The Defendant was born in Vietnam on 2 August 1991 and was 32 years of age at the time of the present offence. He is single and has received up to secondary school level of education in Vietnam. He has a girlfriend and a 4-year-old son who are in Vietnam. DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION 10.I have considered the mitigation submissions filed on behalf of the Defendant by his counsel, Mr. Yuen, including the Defendant’s own mitigation letter. 11.In summary, the Defendant committed the present offence out of poverty. He has written a letter to the Court begging for leniency. He states that he has learnt a very good lesson and urges the Court to be as lenient as possible to allow him to return to Vietnam to reunite with his 4-year-old son as early as possible. 12.Mr. Yuen also submits that there is a special mitigating factor in this case: the original charge was one of Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug, but on 26 August 2025, the charge was amended to one of Attempting to Traffic in a Dangerous Drug. This amendment followed Defence correspondence dated 23 August 2025, which pointed out that:
13.By a letter to the Defence dated 26 August 2025, the Prosecution accepted that the appropriate charge should be Attempted to Traffic in a Dangerous Drug, and the Amended Charge and Summary of Facts were enclosed. 14.Mr. Yuen submits that this clearly shows the sincerity of the Defendant in pleading guilty to the charge and in accepting responsibility therefor. The Defendant never took any chance of fighting the case on a point of technicality but chose to point out everything to the Prosecution to complete the process in guilty plea and sentence. SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS 15.Trafficking in dangerous drugs is, of course, a very serious offence. The Court of Appeal has established the six-step sentencing approach in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. I shall apply that approach. Step 1: Identify the Relevant Guideline Band 16.The present offence concerns attempting to traffic in a total of 64.4819 kilogrammes of cannabis in herbal form. 17.The sentencing guidelines for trafficking in herbal cannabis are set out in HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329, which revised the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in herbal cannabis and cannabis resin:
18.Trafficking over 45,000 grammes (up to 90,000 grammes) of herbal cannabis would attract an imprisonment term of 96 to 120 months, i.e. 8 to 10 years. The quantity of 64.4819 kilogrammes falls within this band. A quantity of 64.4819 kilogrammes would attract a starting point of approximately 8 years and 10 months (106 months). Step 2: Assess the Defendant’s Role and Culpability 19.There is nothing in the Summary of Facts suggesting any significant role or culpability on the part of the Defendant in trafficking at all. 20.Applying the principle stated by the Court of Appeal in R v Chan Mung Lung [1992] 2 HKCLR 127, in the absence of a finding on whether drugs were for own consumption or for re-sale, a sentence should be passed which reflects the factual version most favourable to the applicant. Therefore, the role and culpability on the evidence of the Defendant should be assessed at the lowest possible level, i.e. the courier or storekeeper rank. 21.In any event, there is absolutely nothing suggesting any actual or direct trafficking on the part of the Defendant, or that he was taking a manager or organizer role or engaging others to deal in or distribute drugs on his behalf, let alone any evidence suggesting the Defendant was an operator or financial controller or making any gains, or as organizer or controller of a large and lucrative operation. 22.The Defendant was directed by an unknown Vietnamese man to coordinate the unloading and moving of the pallets for a promised reward of HK$500 only. This indicates a minimal role and low-level culpability. Step 3: Identify the Starting Point within the Band 23.On all the above, the Defendant should come below the lowest band, given the Defendant’s minimal role and culpability. 24.There is nothing suggesting the Defendant knew or had anything to do with the importing of the consignment. There is no evidence that the Defendant knew the drugs were imported into Hong Kong. Therefore, there is no aggravating factor of an international element against the Defendant. 25.The Defendant has a clear record at the time of the offence. The Defendant came to Hong Kong in 2019 but only came to know the unknown Vietnamese male on 14 May 2024. Nothing suggests the Defendant came to Hong Kong for the purpose of committing the present offence at all. During the Defendant’s stay in Hong Kong since 2019, he has committed no other crimes apart from the present one and the illegal entry. 26.Taking into account the quantity of drugs (64.4819 kg of herbal cannabis), the Defendant’s minimal role and culpability as a courier/storekeeper, and the absence of any aggravating factors, I consider that an appropriate starting point is 8 years and 10 months’ imprisonment (106 months). Step 4: Consider Aggravating Factors 27.Based on my observation in Step 3 and that here is no evidence of any gain or financial benefit beyond the promised HK$500 reward, I find no aggravating factors specific to the Defendant. Step 5: Consider Mitigating Factors 28.The Defendant is entitled to the following discounts: (i) One-third discount for guilty plea 29.The Defendant has shown genuine remorse. He indicated his intention to plead guilty at the Magistrate Court and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He is therefore entitled to a full one-third discount. This is the most substantial mitigating factor. (ii) Special mitigating factor – assistance to the prosecution and sincerity 30.Mr. Yuen submits that the amendment of the charge which was only brought about by the Defence clearly shows the sincerity of the Defendant in pleading guilty to the charge and in accepting responsibility therefor. The Defendant never took any chance of fighting the case on a point of technicality but chose to point out everything to the Prosecution to complete the process in guilty plea and sentence. 31.I consider that the Defendant’s conduct in promptly and candidly pointing out the technical issue to the Prosecution, rather than seeking to exploit it or delay proceedings, demonstrates genuine remorse and a sincere desire to accept responsibility. This is a factor that warrants some additional recognition beyond the usual one-third discount. Step 6: Apply the Totality Principle and Finalise Sentence 32.I must now stand back and ensure the sentence is fair, just, and proportionate to the Defendant’s overall criminality (see Herry Jane Yusuph at §79). 33.The starting point before discount is 8 years and 10 months’ imprisonment (106 months). 34.The Defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for his guilty plea:
35.In addition, I consider that the special mitigating factor – the Defendant’s sincerity in pointing out the technical issue to the Prosecution, which led to the amendment of the Charge – warrants a further discount. This is not a case where the Defendant sought to exploit a technicality. In so doing, he has actively and correctly assisted in ensuring the correct charge was laid. 36.Taking into account all the circumstances, I consider that a further discount of approximately 5% is appropriate to reflect this special mitigating factor. This is consistent with the approach in HKSAR v Tsang Ka-wing [2017] 5 HKLRD 799, where a further discount was granted for assistance to the authorities. 37.Applying a further 5% discount:
38.I round this down to 67 months (5 years and 7 months). 39.I have applied the structured six-step sentencing approach and have carefully considered the relevant authorities. The sentence I have imposed is, in my judgment, fair, just, and proportionate to the Defendant’s overall criminality. ORDER 40.Accordingly, for the present charge, the Defendant is sentenced to 5 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.
Ms. Janice KWAN, SPP of Department of Justice, for the HKSAR Mr. Bernard YUEN, instructed by Ng & Co., Solicitors, assigned by The Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment