HKSAR v. CHU WANG HEI

DCCC 511/2024

[2025] HKDC 1333

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 511 OF 2024

------------------

------------------

-------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

-------------------------------------

1.  The defendant, Mr Chu, has pleaded guilty to two charges today, firstly, trafficking in a dangerous drug, a quantity of 7.67 grammes of cocaine in terms of narcotic value, and a 2^nd charge of resisting a police officer, both offences occurring on 27 October 2023 near Soy Street in Mong Kok. 

2.  The facts are straightforward.  Police at the time were conducting a roadblock in Mong Kok and the defendant’s private car which he was driving was stopped near the roadblock.  Police then approached the car for the purpose of investigation.  The defendant was found to be holding in his left hand a plastic packet which contained the drugs which are the subject of the charge.  At the time that the defendant was taken into custody there was a struggle hence some difficulty was found in subduing the defendant resulting in him being handcuffed and resulting in the 2^nd charge on this indictment.  The defendant remained silent under caution.  In support of the charge of trafficking, an electronic scale was found in the compartment behind the front passenger seat of the car.  Nothing was found at the defendant’s home.  The street value of the drugs is estimated to be in the region of $12,490.38.

3.  The defendant has admitted his antecedents.  At the time they were taken he was 37 years old, working as a wakeboard instructor.  The defendant is recorded on the antecedent statement as being a drug addict.  That is supported by his conviction history dating back to 2018 when he was placed on Probation for possession of a dangerous drug. Later on in 2019 about a year later, he was found to be in breach of that Probation Order and further sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months with the Probation Order being discharged.

4.  The defendant has put forward mitigation. On the basis that the defendant is an addict of cocaine and has been for about 12 years and he puts forward the position that his use of the drug was partially accompanied by a social distribution of drugs during parties and gatherings and was for social purposes not necessarily for profit.  This it is said is supported by the urine assay conducted on his entry to Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre on 31 October 2023 where a positive reading for cocaine was found.  It was also said in mitigation the defendant is remorseful for this and this is the first time he has been in prison as a result of his drug addiction.  I must take that into account in sentencing the defendant.

5.  Now as far as the approach to sentencing is concerned, trafficking in a dangerous drug is generally determined by the guideline sentencing and the appellate courts have investigated the principles which should apply in sentencing in these cases.  I will refer briefly to the cases there.  There is HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2020] HKCA 974 which enjoins the court to take a six‑step approach to assess all the factors that would be relevant in the sentencing process.  Also, the guideline sentence in respect of trafficking in cocaine can be found in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang, a recent case of [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.  The first and most obvious approach is to assess what the guideline sentence is for 7.67 grammes of cocaine.  That is contained in the case of Huang Ruifang but I do note that the case of Herry Jane Yusuph says that the operation of the court is not simply a mathematical deduction from the figure. The relevant guideline is the one that leads up to 10 grammes of cocaine and for a quantity up to 10 grammes the starting point for sentence would range between 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment.  A purely mathematical approach to sentencing would lead to a starting point for sentence on the 1^st charge in the region of 51 months’ imprisonment. 

6.  There are no other relevant aggravating factors in the course of this offence that would lead the court to adopt a higher starting point.  What can only be established is on the basis of the defendant’s own mitigation admissions today that he was a social trafficker. The question now is what mitigating factors can be applied in this case.

7.  The defendant is a self-confessed addict and a self‑confessed social trafficker of the drug.  This is a mitigation factor that has been accepted in the case of Secretary for Justice v Chan Suet Ping [2018] 1 HKLRD 305. 

8.  I have also been referred by the defence to the case of HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau & Another which again gives guidance on the correct approach to take where a portion of the drugs is determined to be for the defendant’s own consumption.  The court must be satisfied that a significant portion of the drug is involved and the case of Chan Suet Ping says in that circumstance a court can give a deduction from the initial starting point for sentence of between 10 to 25 per cent of the initial starting point.  In this case, it seems there is little room for dispute the defendant would allow for a significant portion of the drugs to be consumed by himself and I take that into account when determining the mitigating factors in the case and the relevant deduction for that mitigating factor.

9.  On the 1^st charge, I have original starting point of 51 months’ imprisonment.  I will reduce that by 9 months to represent the defendant’s personal self-consumption of the drug in line with the case of Chan Suet Ping.  That would lead to a starting point on charge 1 of 42 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant, of course, is entitled to a full one-third deduction from that figure for his early plea of guilty.  This by my calculation leads to a sentence on the 1^st charge of one of 28 months’ imprisonment.

10.  But of course there is the 2^nd charge as well.  The defendant had to a certain extent resisted his arrest.  Normally, a fairly short sentence for imprisonment would be imposed.  I will take a starting point of 6 weeks’ imprisonment, reduce that to 4 weeks or one month’s imprisonment.  Having regard to the overall total of sentence, I will order that to be served concurrently with charge 1 which leads to a total sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment for these offences.