HKSAR v. Kong Shing Chi

On 14 September 2026, the Court of Appeal (Zervos JA) handed down judgment in HKSAR v Kong Shing-chi (江成智), CACC 283/2025, [2026] HKCA 1672, refusing the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence for conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug. Ms Clara Ma, SPP, appeared for the respondent; the applicant appeared in person.

The case arose from a cocaine trafficking ring run by Fan Kam Hing (the ringleader, then 25), the applicant (then 18) and Ng Ho Lam (then 15). Fan recruited the applicant, who in turn recruited Ng. They operated a 24-hour drug den first from an inn on Temple Street and then from a flat in Mirador Mansion, Tsim Sha Tsui, selling packets of cocaine at HK$350 each (§1-2). The applicant packaged the drugs, worked the night shift, and recruited Ng despite knowing he was only 15 (§6).

The applicant pleaded guilty to two counts: trafficking in 10.03 grammes of cocaine found in the flat (Count 2) and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine between late December 2021 and 17 April 2022 (Count 3). Before ST Poon J, he was sentenced to 40 months on Count 2 and 10 years on Count 3, concurrent (§9). The judge adopted a starting point of 16 years on Count 3, derived from an estimated total of 590 grammes of cocaine trafficked over 108 days, falling within the 500-1,500 gramme band under the revised guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 (§11-12). He reduced the starting point by 8 months for the applicant's remorse, young age and clear record.

The Court held that the applicant had no reasonably arguable ground of appeal. The judge had been mindful of the applicant's youth and the influence Fan exerted over him, and had already made allowances, including ordering the Count 2 and Count 3 sentences to run concurrently (§14). The arithmetic underpinning the notional quantity of 590 grammes was reasonable on the evidence (§11). The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused (§16).

Why it matters

Practitioners advising young offenders in drug conspiracy cases should expect sentencing courts to apply the Huang Ruifang (No 3) bands strictly to notional quantities derived from admissions and revenue records, with limited headroom for mitigation where the offender played a recruiting or operational role. The judgment also signals that where charges against a ringleader are withdrawn for lack of evidence, the Court of Appeal may itself direct that the judgment be forwarded to the DPP and Commissioner of Police for further consideration (§17-18), a step counsel should anticipate when representing co-operating accused.