HKSAR v. CHAN KA KIT

HCCC 147/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 147 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  At the committal proceedings held at the Eastern Magistracy on 22 April 2025, the defendant pleaded guilty to the 1st Charge of “trafficking in a dangerous drug”, the 2nd Charge of “dangerous driving”, and the 3rd Charge of “driving a motor vehicle with any concentration of specified illicit drug”, and admitted the Summary of Facts put forward by the prosecution.

2.  The Particulars of Offence of the 1st Charge state that on 10 February 2023, outside No. 123 Wellington Street, Central in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 598.5 grammes of a solid containing 542.3 grammes of cocaine.  

3.  The Particulars of Offence of the 2nd Charge state that on 10 February 2023, in Hong Kong, the defendant drove a motor vehicle, namely a private car, bearing registration mark YA3755, on a road dangerously. 

4.  The Particulars of Offence of the 3rd Charge state that on 10 February 2023, in Hong Kong, the defendant drove a motor vehicle bearing registration mark YA3755 on a road while specified illicit drugs, namely benzoylecgonine, cocaine, and ecgonine methyl ester were present in his blood.  

5.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows.  On 10 February 2023, police officers, including PW1, PW2, and PW3 mounted an anti-narcotics operation in the vicinity of Aberdeen Street, Hollywood Road, and Wellington Street in Central.  Since 6 pm, they started looking for a black private vehicle with a plate that contained “Y” and “55”.  Two unmarked police vehicles with plate numbered UP4752 (“V2”) and SP4275 (“V3”) respectively also parked near Kau U Fong, Central.  

6.  At about 8.30 pm, while PW1 was patrolling outside Kau U Fong, he saw a black private vehicle (“V1”) with a plate numbered YA3755 entering Kau U Fong from Aberdeen Street.  It was then parked at No. 2 Kau U Fong which was right behind V3.  PW1 went near and found that the defendant was the driver and the only person inside V1.  At that time, the defendant kept looking around and pressing his mobile phone.  He also looked nervous.  Since PW1 believed that V1 should be the vehicle, he informed other police officers at the scene for further action.  

7.  At about 8.33 pm, once PW3 drove V2 behind V1, the operation turned overt.  Four police officers, including PW1 and PW2, went up to V1 and revealed their police identities.  They demanded the defendant to get out of V1 for investigation.  However, the defendant did not comply with the instructions.  He suddenly drove V1 forward and towards On Wo Lane.  When he reached the dead end on On Wo Lane, he drove V1 backwards, back to Kau U Fong, and collided with the front bumper of V2 parked on the pavement.  After that, he continued to drive V1 in reverse until it entered Aberdeen Street.  V1 then collided with the rear offside of a taxi (“V4”) twice in the junction of Aberdeen Street and Wellington Street.  The defendant then turned V1 left to enter Wellington Street, drove onto the pavement, and collided with the offside mirror of another private car (“V5”).  It was then stuck on a curb.  

8.  The whole incident lasted for around three minutes.  CCTV in the vicinity and the dash cameras of V1 to V4 have captured the entire incident.  

9.  The officers, including PW1 and PW2, chased after V1 and arrived at the relevant curb on Wellington Street at about 8.37 pm.  The defendant was still inside V1. They again demanded the defendant to get out of the vehicle.  The defendant did not comply with the instructions.  PW1 then used his baton to smash the front passenger’s window of V1.  The officers opened the door of V1 and dragged the defendant out of the vehicle.  After a fierce struggle, the officers subdued the defendant on the ground and PW1 handcuffed the defendant.  

10.  The defendant was arrested.  At about 9.05 pm, PW2 searched V1 preliminarily on Wellington Street in the presence of the defendant.  Upon search, 12 packets of suspected cocaine (“E1 to E3”), one on the driver’s seat and 11 under the seat respectively, were found.  PW2 also seized cash of HK$2,107 and a dash camera from the vehicle. 

11.  At about 10.56 pm, PW4 attended the scene to conduct a Rapid Oral Fluid Test against the defendant.  The defendant was tested positive for cocaine and/or metabolite of cocaine.  The defendant was then taken to Queen Mary Hospital.  With his written consent, blood sample was taken from him for examination.  

12.  At about 4.12 am on 11 February 2023, the defendant was taken to the Central Police Station for investigation.  By then, V1 had been towed to the police station.  In the presence of the defendant, PW2 conducted further search against V1.  Upon search, 21 more packages of suspected cocaine (“E6 and E7”) were seized from an inner compartment below the steering wheel.  Under caution for trafficking in a dangerous drug, the defendant admitted that the “Coke” belonged to him, yet he did not know the amount in total.  The said admission of the defendant was post-recorded in a record of interview on which he signed to acknowledge his consent.  

13.  The defendant was the registered owner of V1 at the material time.  

14.  It has been confirmed by the Government Laboratory that E1 to E3 and E6 to E7 contained in total 33 plastic bags containing 598.5 grammes of a solid containing 542.3 grammes of cocaine.  The street value of the same was HK$538,051.  

15.  It is now also confirmed that the blood sample of the defendant taken in the hospital had contained specified illicit drugs, namely:

(1) benzoylecgonine, a metabolite derived from cocaine, with a concentration of 0.33 μg/mL;

(2) cocaine, with a concentration of 0.006 μg/mL; and

(3) ecgonine methyl ester, a metabolite derived from cocaine, with a concentration of 0.01 μg/mL.

16.  The defendant on 10 February 2023, outside 123 Wellington Street, Central, Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 598.5 grammes of a solid containing 542.3 grammes of cocaine; and the defendant on 10 February 2023, in Hong Kong, drove a motor vehicle bearing registration mark YA3755 on a road while specified illicit drugs, namely benzoylecgonine, cocaine, and ecgonine methyl ester were present in his blood.  

17.  Regarding the personal background of the defendant, he was born in Hong Kong in 1981 and was aged 42 at the time he committed the offences.  He is now 44 years of age. He received education up to Secondary Form 3 level.  The defendant worked at the Cheung Sha Wan Wholesale Fish Market in December 2022, with a monthly salary of $28,000.  

18.  He was married in 2012 but filed for a divorce in December 2022.  The daughter of that marriage, presently aged 12 years, has been living with her mother since the divorce.  The defendant was living with a girlfriend at the time of his arrest. The defendant and his girlfriend have since parted company after the defendant’s incarceration. 

19.  The defendant has a lengthy criminal record including convictions for burglary, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and possession for the purpose of trade or business infringing copies of copyright works, but none of those are related to the three offences he has presently been charged with.  

20.  Regarding the 1st Charge, the sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.  The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band (or bracket) applicable to the quantity of drug concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes.  It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant.  The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matter of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”.  The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced sentence”.  

21.  Regarding the first step, for 542.3 grammes of cocaine, the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, at paragraph 62.  

22.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a courier or storekeeper of the drug, as described in paragraph 59 of Herry Jane Yusuph, supra. 

23.  Third, for 542.3 grammes of cocaine, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a “notional sentence after trial” of 16 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. I would adopt that as the “notional sentence after trial” in this case for Charge 1, based on my finding of the defendant’s role and culpability under Step 2 above.  

24.  Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the “notional sentence after trial”.  

25.  Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is his timely guilty plea, for which I will give the defendant a one-third discount. 

26.  Accordingly, applying a one-third discount to the “notional sentence after trial”, the defendant’s sentence on the 1st Charge is reduced to 10 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.  

27.  Turning now to the sentences on Charge 2 and Charge 3, bearing in mind the need of deterrence and instilling social responsibility in drivers, the presence of cocaine in the defendant’s body and his attempt to flee the scene, I would adopt a global starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Yip Sing Yeung [2022] HKCA 175, and HKSAR v Chung Ho Yin [2021] HKCA 1265, at paragraph 42. 

28.  I would afford the defendant a one-third discount for his guilty plea.  This would reduce the global sentence on Charges 2 and 3 to 20 months’ imprisonment.

29.  To achieve that result, I sentence the defendant on Charge 2 and Charge 3 as follows:

(1) I sentence the defendant to 20 months’ imprisonment on Charge 2;

(2) I sentence the defendant to 12 months’ imprisonment on Charge 3;

(3) I order that the sentences on Charge 2 and Charge 3 are to run concurrently.

30.  I further order that the defendant is disqualified from driving for all vehicle classes for a period of 2 years and 6 months, such disqualification period to commence only upon the completion of the defendant’s custodial sentences; and the defendant shall not resume driving upon the expiry of the disqualification period unless and until he has passed a driving improvement course at his own expense. 

31.  Finally, under Step 6 of Herry Jane Yusuph, supra, I have to consider the total sentence that the defendant has to serve.  Having regard to the fact that Charge 1 on the one hand, and Charges 2 and 3 on the other, were separate offences of different nature, but at the same time taking firmly into account the totality principle, I hold that the total sentence that the defendant has to serve should be 11 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. 

32.  To achieve that totality, I order that 12 months of the concurrent sentences on Charge 2 and Charge 3 are to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1.  In my view, the total sentence of 11 years and 9 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of the defendant.