HKSAR v. CHENG KA FU

DCCC 286/2025

[2026] HKDC 957

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 286 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant (“D”)  pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, and one charge of possession of a dangerous drug.

Facts

2.  D was driving a private car YR8755 around 8:30 pm on 2 October 2024 when he was stopped by the police for a check at Sai Yee Street near Bute Street in Mong Kok.

3.  Upon a search of the car, in the storage compartment next to the driver’s seat, the police found the following items: (i)  one resealable plastic bag containing 20 small resealable plastic bags containing a total of 6.14 g of a solid containing 4.87 g of cocaine; and (ii)  one resealable plastic bag containing 5 small resealable plastic bags containing a total of 5 tablets containing 0.70 g of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”).

4.  At the material time, D had with him: (i)  a sling bag containing HK$23,085.40 cash; (ii)  a wallet containing cash of HK$2,300 and RMB1,850; and (iii)  3 Samsung mobile phones with 5 SIM cards inside.

5.  Under caution, D claimed that he had purchased the drugs for self-consumption.

6.  The estimated street value of the drugs was about HK$5,623.

Defendant’s Background

7.  D is 51 years old. He is married with two children. He was a delivery driver at the time of his arrest and allegedly earning HK$40,000 a month. He claims that he has been a cocaine user for 10 years.

8.  He has 18 previous convictions. He has been convicted twice for trafficking in dangerous drugs, and 5 times for possessing dangerous drugs. He was last discharged from prison on 4 August 2023 after serving a sentence of 7 years 2 months’ imprisonment for trafficking in dangerous drugs.

Mitigation

9.  With regard to Charge 1 of trafficking in MDMA, defence counsel Ryan Chan said the amount involved is extremely small. D was helping a friend to convey the drug for his friend’s own use. He was not offered or paid any reward for doing so. He has cut ties with this friend and will not associate with people of dubious character.

10.  The 6-step approach in sentencing for trafficking in dangerous drugs set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 that Mr Chan referred to is summarised as follows: (i)  identify the relevant sentencing band applicable to the amount of drug concerned; (ii)  assess the role and culpability of the defendant; (iii)  identify the relevant band the defendant comes under; (iv)  consider aggravating factors; (v)  consider mitigating factors; and (vi)  ensure that the overall sentence is fair, just and balanced.

11.  Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 sets out the sentencing tariffs for trafficking in ketamine and MDMA. For trafficking in up to 1 g of MDMA, the sentence would be within the sentencer’s discretion.

12.  As for Charge 2 of possession of cocaine, Mr Chan submitted that the usual sentencing range is 12 to 18 months for a bona fide user. The case of HKSAR v Wan Sheung Sum [2000] 1 HKLRD 405 was referred to for the approach to assessment of the latent risk.

13.  It was submitted that the cocaine was entirely for consumption by D, who had been addicted to this drug since he was 18 years old. The latent risk was low.

14.  Moreover, since his release on bail on 15 October 2025, he has been leading a law-abiding life and stayed out of drugs. The 2 drug tests which he undertook privately and voluntarily on 27 April 2026 and 22 May 2026 both show negative responses to all the drugs tested, including cocaine. His current employer is prepared to have him back once he has served his sentence. He has also been doing volunteer work, visiting elderly people living alone.

Sentencing considerations

15.  Charge 1 involves trafficking in 0.7 g of MDMA. The Hii Siew Cheng guidelines apply. D was conveying the drug for his friend’s use. His role was akin to a courier. He falls within the sentencing band of “Up to 1 g -- within the sentencer’s discretion”. I note that the next sentencing band is “Over 1 g to 10 g – 2 to 4 years imprisonment.” I will adopt 18 months’ imprisonment as the notional starting point for this charge.

16.  Charge 2 involves possession of 4.87 g of cocaine. The case of HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik CACC 165/2000 says that the starting point for mere possession of a quantity of dangerous drugs which a bona fide user would normally have in his possession should be in the range of 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment. If an offender is a persistent one, he can expect the starting point to be higher than it otherwise would be.

17.  Despite his having 5 previous convictions for this offence, D’s last conviction for such an offence was in 1994. These long-ago similar convictions will be disregarded for sentencing purposes.

18.  The quantity of cocaine involved was neither very large nor very small in terms of mere possession. I will adopt 15 months’ imprisonment as the notional starting point for Charge 2.

19.  With regard to the latent risk factor, I note that he has altogether 5 previous convictions for possession of dangerous drugs in 1993 and 1994, and that according to what D said in his mitigation letter, he had been addicted to drugs since he was 18 years old. His alleged history of addiction would seem to be supported by the dates of the said convictions.

20.  On the other hand, I note that the cocaine was wrapped in 20 small resealable plastic bags, that D had $23,085.4 in a sling bag and $2,300 in his wallet, that the drug was found not in his home but in a car he was driving, that he was engaged in trafficking in the MDMA which was stored in the same storage compartment as the cocaine was, and that his last 2 convictions were both for trafficking in dangerous drugs for which he was given substantial terms of imprisonment.

21.  Overall, I do not think that the latent risk was a small one. I will enhance the notional starting point by 9 months to account for this risk, making a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment in all for this charge.

22.  D’s guilty plea is the only mitigating factor, which will reduce the sentence in respect of Charge 1 to 12 months’ imprisonment, and the sentence in respect of Charge 2 to 16 months’ imprisonment. Both sentences are to be served concurrently.