HKSAR v. TSE TO CHIU

HCCC 95/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 95 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charge

1.  On 2 March 2026, the defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The charge involved 104.2 kilogrammes of cannabis in herbal form.  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 9 January 2026 and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed his guilty plea to the trafficking charge and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.  The facts of the case can be summarized as follows.

3.  In the small hours on 28 July 2024, police officers saw the defendant walking towards a light goods vehicle (“LGV”)  at a car park in Tsing Yi.  When the defendant opened the driver door of the LGV, he was intercepted by police officers.

4.  The LGV was searched and a total of 422 packets containing 104.2 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis were found inside.  Those dangerous drugs had an estimated street value of HK$19,902,200.

5.  The defendant was arrested and under caution, he admitted that he intended to traffic in the cannabis.

6.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview conducted under caution on the same day, the defendant admitted, inter alia, the following:-

(a)  He was the registered owner of the LGV;

(b)  The cannabis did not belong to him. An acquaintance of his named “KK” had asked him to transport the drugs for a reward of HK$2,500. When he received them, he had a suspicion that they contained cannabis because of the smell; and

(c)  Inspection of the defendant’s mobile phones and the WhatsApp messages in them revealed that the defendant had been in contact with a person by the name “hong kong” regarding the delivery.

7.  In the Summary of Facts, the defendant admitted that at the material time, he knowingly possessed the dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Background and mitigation

8.  The defendant was 34 years old at the time of the offence and is now aged 36. He is married and prior to his arrest, he was living in a rented flat with his wife in Tsing Yi.  He has a clear record.

9.  The defendant received education up to Form 2.  After leaving school, he began working as a delivery driver or a truck driver for a company.  In order to earn side income, he also took up orders to deliver goods for other customers with his own mini-van.  Prior to his arrest, his average monthly earnings were approximately HK$30,000.

10.  Counsel for the defendant, Mr. Lau, told the Court that due to the economic downturn after the COVID pandemic, there was a significant drop in his earnings; and the defendant committed the present offence in order to sustain his family’s living.

11.  The Court was also told that during his remand, the defendant has made constructive use of his time by completing a 50-hour self-learning course in media writings and further education in religious classes and computer classes; and he has also obtained a Food Hygiene Manager Certificate and a Foundation Certificate in Construction Safety.  Mr. Lau submitted that this demonstrates his commitment to self-improvement and his determination to equip himself with skills for reintegration into society upon release. 

12.  The defence also submitted a total of four letters in mitigation.  In his own letter, the defendant expressed his willingness to bear full responsibility for his wrongdoing and his wishes to reunite with his wife and family.

13.  The defendant’s wife described him to be a responsible and dependable husband, particularly during difficult times, who always sought to protect her from hardship and worry.  His father-in-law was shocked by the defendant’s offending but stated that he was relieved to learn that the defendant had genuine remorse for the offence.  His parents confirmed the defendant’s care for them, including giving them monthly financial support.  His brother and sister-in-law described him as a hardworking and industrious individual with a good character.

14.  Mr. Lau submitted that according to the Summary of Facts, the defendant’s involvement was confined to transporting the drugs from one place to another at a designated time.  Mr. Lau invited the Court to find the defendant’s role as that of a courier.

15.  Mr. Lau submitted that the defendant has demonstrated his genuine remorse and despite his being in custody, he continues to enjoy strong family support.  Having reflected deeply upon his wrongdoing, the defendant is determined to turn over a new leaf and return to the society as a responsible and productive member of the community.  In light of all the circumstances, Mr. Lau pleaded for the Court’s leniency in sentencing.

Sentence

16.  In sentencing the defendant, I will follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

17.  The tariffs for sentencing an offence of trafficking in herbal cannabis are set out in HKSAR v Nguyen Thank Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329.  For cannabis of a quantity over 90 kilogrammes, the starting point is 10 years’ imprisonment or above.  Given the quantity involved in the present case (namely 104.2 kilogrammes), I will use a notional starting point of 10 years and 3 months’ imprisonment in sentencing.

18.  Turning to the role and culpability of the defendant.  Having considered the Summary of Facts and heard from Mr. Lau, I am prepared to accept the role of the defendant as that of a courier.

19.  The defendant has a clear record.  There is no aggravating factor applicable to the present case.  

20.  Given the seriousness of the offence, the only real and strong mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is his guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount.  Applying the one-third discount to the starting point of 10 years and 3 months, that will result in a final sentence of 6 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

21.  I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 6 years and 10 months.