HKSAR v. CHAN LUI CHING

HCCC 322/2024

[2025] HKCFI 3404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 322 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 3 October 2024. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant has confirmed his plea and his admission to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of the charge state that on the 6th day of November 2021, in Hong Kong, together with persons unknown, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 508.839 kilogrammes of a solid containing 429.759 kilogrammes of cocaine.  I have been informed by the prosecution that this was, at that time, the second largest seizure of cocaine in Hong Kong on a single occasion. 

3.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows. 

4.  From September to October 2021, a local logistics company was engaged by someone who claimed to be “Mr Ding” for the collection, devanning and delivery of two cargos of frozen orange juice imported into Hong Kong from Brazil. 

5.  On 5 November 2021, the police searched the two cargos at the logistics company’s warehouse in Yuen Long (“the Warehouse”).  The cargos were sealed by padlocks. Each of the cargos contained 128 metal barrels of frozen orange juice.  In seven of the barrels, a total of 508 blocks of substance were wrapped inside some plastic wrappings within the frozen orange juice.  Subsequent tests confirmed in total there was 508.839 kilogrammes solid containing 429.759 kilogrammes of cocaine (Exhibits 1 to 102).  The estimated street value of the cocaine was between HK$526,139,526 (in powder form) and HK$889,450,572 (in crack form). 

6.  During the police search, Mr Ding through WhatsApp instructed the logistic company to deliver the barrels to a “Mr Chan” at Room 1211 of Favor Industrial Centre at Nos. 2‑6 Kin Hong Street in Kwai Chung (“the Room”) on the following day, that is 6 November 2021. 

7.  In the morning on 6 November 2021, upon confirming the delivery address with Mr Chan and accompanied by plainclothes police officers, the logistics company delivered 36 unopened barrels (on nine pallets) from the Warehouse to the area outside the Room.  By around 10.25 am, a staff of the logistics company called to inform Mr Chan that the barrels had arrived outside the Room.  After the phone call, the defendant opened the door of the Room from inside, and directed that the barrels to be unloaded inside the Room.  There was no one else in the Room.  While the barrels were being unloaded in the Room, the defendant was reminded that the Room might not be big enough for the remaining barrels.  The defendant responded by saying that he knew there would be 256 barrels in total and he would arrange another location for the storage of them.  The police intercepted the defendant as he signed to confirm his receipt of the barrels. 

8.  At the time of apprehension, the defendant was holding a company chop of Cheuk Yuet Food Trading Limited, which was the same as the consignee as named on the bill of lading of the barrels.  Search of the defendant found a mobile phone with a SIM card installed. 

9.  Upon arrest and under caution for drug trafficking, the defendant said he merely received $1,500 to help someone to collect the nine pallets of illicit drugs at warehouse. 

10.  The police further seized from the Room various items, including but not limited to: 

(1) Two cigarette butts (later tested to contain the defendant’s DNA);

(2) a CCTV camera with a SIM card;

(3) an electric drill;

(4) a crowbar;

(5) a hammer;

(6) working gloves;

(7) four packs of towels;

(8) stacks of empty carton boxes;

(9) four empty carton boxes;

(10) a cutter;

(11) plastic adhesive tapes;

(12) a trolley; and

(13) the defendant’s rucksack, in which there were items including but not limited to:

(a) a key to the Room;

(b) rental documents of the Room; and

(c) shirts, a pair of trousers, and a pair of shoes.

11.  As revealed by the defendant during a video-recorded interview with the police:

(1) Around August to September 2021, the defendant looked for jobs to pay off his debt. He saw an advertisement on Facebook recruiting casual workers. He was told that the job was to be a keeper of a warehouse.

(2) After communicating online, the defendant met an unknown male surname Chan (“Male X”) in Mongkok. There he was told that the job was to be a keeper of a warehouse for storing illicit drugs, until someone else taking the drug away. Male X offered $500 to $1,000 reward per day.

(3) The defendant accepted Male X’s offer and received $1,500 and a mobile phone (with SIM card) from Male X. Male X also gave the defendant around $50,000 for renting the Room. The defendant followed Male X’s instruction to visit the Room and to sign a tenancy agreement.

(4) At Male X’s instruction, the defendant purchased items including the carton boxes, trolley, CCTV cameras, SIM cards, electric drill, hammer, crowbar, cutter, towels, gloves, and plastic adhesive tapes. The defendant also purchased a door lock for the Room.

(5) The defendant brought an extension cord to the Room for connecting the power cable to the CCTV cameras.

(6) At Male X’s instruction, the defendant also purchased some newspapers and used them to cover the windows of the Room, so as to avoid the drug being seen by others.

(7) On the day before the arrest, the defendant was told by Male X that some illicit drug would arrive at the Room on the following day. The defendant went to the Room by around 9 am to 10 am on the day of arrest. He was told that there would be 50 pallets of goods arriving at the Room.

(8) The defendant had used the mobile phone provided by Male X to contact Male X. In an instant message chat group, the defendant had forwarded some deposit receipts to a delivery company.

12.  Police enquiries revealed that the defendant had in fact visited the Room on 27 September 2021 and had signed a tenancy agreement for renting the Room from 1 November 2021 onwards. 

13.  It is expressly admitted in the Summary of Facts that on 6 November 2021, in Hong Kong, the defendant, together with persons unknown, possessed all the dangerous drugs seized by the police in this case (ie Exhibits 1 to 102) for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. 

14.  Regarding the personal background of the defendant.  The defendant has a clear record. He is aged 31.  Prior to his arrest, the defendant lived with his father, mother, and elder sister in a public housing unit. 

15.  The defendant received education up to Secondary Form 3 level.  After joining the workforce, he had been a construction site worker, delivery worker, waiter, and decoration worker with regular income.  However, since the social events in 2019 and the COVID pandemic, the defendant has not been able to secure a stable job and was only able to take up odd jobs.  As a result, the defendant ran up a debt of around $80,000. 

16.  Foolishly, the defendant became involved in the drug trade, with the details as contained in the video-recorded interview given by the defendant to the police. 

17.  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 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 matters 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”. 

18.  Regarding the first step, in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234 at paragraph 62, the Court of Appeal laid down the highest guideline tariff band at 27 to 30 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in between 15 kilogrammes and 30 kilogrammes of heroin or cocaine.  Above 30 kilogrammes, sentences will fall within the discretion of judges, but importantly bearing in mind the practical and realistic ceiling of 35 years’ imprisonment, as established in HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777. 

19.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a storekeeper of the dangerous drug.  Although the cargos of frozen orange juice in which the cocaine was concealed had been imported into Hong Kong from Brazil, the evidence suggests that the defendant was only responsible for the storage of the drug in Hong Kong, after it had been imported from Brazil.  In other words, the defendant was not responsible for the actual importation of the drugs. 

20.  Third, based on the quantity of the cocaine involved (429.759 kilogrammes) and the role and culpability of the defendant as held in step two above, I am of the view that the “notional sentence after trial” should be 34 years’ imprisonment. 

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

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

23.  Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reduced to 22 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. 

24.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 22 years and 8 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in view of the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of the defendant. 

25.  The defendant is accordingly sentenced to 22 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.