HKSAR v. YEUNG ON YEE

HCCC 61/2025

[2025]HKCFI 5143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 61 OF 2025

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed on the 20 February 2025 to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The defendant confirmed her plea and admission of the Summary of Facts before me and her conviction was duly recorded.

The particulars of the charge are that the defendant on the 7 June 2023, outside Main Wing Mansion, Nos. 503 to 507 Nathan Road, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug namely six resealable plastic bags containing 142.6 grammes of a solid containing 92.1 grammes of cocaine.

The facts of the case is that the defendant admitted can be summarised as follows for present purposes:

On the 7 June 2023 at around 10.25 pm, police officers spotted the defendant acting furtively outside the above location after she alighted from a taxi. The defendant was thus intercepted for enquiry. Upon search, the following items were found inside a black plastic bag carried by the defendant at the material time: Five resealable plastic bags containing a total of 119 grammes of a solid containing 75.1 grammes of cocaine, three pieces of dust removal papers, a piece of tissue paper wrapping a resealable plastic bag containing 23.6 grammes of solid containing 17 grammes of cocaine.

The narcotic content of the above drug was subsequently confirmed by the government chemist. The total drug seized was 142.6 grammes of solid containing 92.1 grammes of cocaine.

The defendant also had with her a mobile phone and cash of $1,028.80. The defendant was arrested at the scene under caution to remain silent. In subsequent-video recorded interview, the defendant remained silent to most of the questions and only stated that she hired a taxi through a mobile app Hong Kong Taxi and got on the taxi outside Kiu Fai Mansion at North Point with destination at Man Wing Mansion at Yau Ma Tei for a game of dart at the material time. The fact that the defendant hired a taxi as stated above was later confirmed by the taxi driver.

Upon arrival at Man Wing Mansion, the defendant told the taxi driver that she would return in a few minutes and asked him to wait for her. The defendant was then intercepted by the police shortly after she alighted from the taxi and was proceeding to the entrance of Man Wing Mansion.

The total estimated street value of the cocaine seized is $111,798.40 in powder form and $163,562.20 in crack form.

By her admission to the Summary of Facts, the defendant accepted that at the material times, she was in unlawful possession of the seized dangerous drug for the purpose of trafficking.

Previous Conviction

The defendant has one previous conviction in 2013 which is unrelated to drugs.

The Background

The defendant was born in Hong Kong and is now 31. Her education level is up to Form 5. After graduation, the defendant worked in various fields including as a restaurant waitress, a supermarket cashier and an assistant in a veterinary clinic. Her father is aged 63 and mother is aged 55. She is a single mother with two young children aged five and four respectively, who are currently in kindergarten.

She experienced domestic violence by her boyfriend who is the father of her two children. In 2021, when her eldest son was one year old and she was pregnant, her boyfriend assaulted her and her eldest son. As a result, the police was called and she was sent to a women’s shelter. After this incident, the defendant moved to a new residence with her eldest son and gave birth to her youngest son.

In 2022, after an assessment by the Social Welfare Department, her eldest son was placed in Po Leung Kuk, as the responsible social worker formed a view that the defendant was unable to support both children financially. It was submitted in mitigation that at the time of the offence, the defendant was receiving CSSA assistance of 12,000 a month, which includes the support of her two children. And that this financial support combined with the unstable income as a tattoo model was insufficient to cover for the family’s living expenses. She therefore committed the present offence for financial reasons.

She was instructed to deliver the drugs from North Point to Yau Ma Tei on that day for a reward of HK$4,000. After the defendant was remanded, her mother had to care for her young son whilst her eldest son remained in Po Leung Kuk.She is required to pay a few thousand dollars to Po Leung Kuk every month to support her eldest son, while her CSSA support was reduced to 7,500 after her remand. Currently, her sons rely on the financial support of CSSA and her father.

The court was also informed that although the defendant’s application for public housing was approved, due to her remand status and inability to complete the necessary procedures in person, her right has been forfeited and she needs to reapply, and that it is uncertain how long the new application will take.

Miss Vivian Wong, counsel for the defendant, informed the court that the defendant is remorseful for the offence. She deeply regrets her misguided actions and pleads for leniency. In this regard, Miss Wong has helpfully provided the court with detailed written mitigation submissions. The materials attached to the written mitigation lends support Miss Wong’s submission that the defendant has sought to rehabilitate herself during her remand to equip herself with new skills for future employment. In particular, she has completed several Chinese medicine courses and plans to seek employment in the Chinese medicine field in the future. She has also obtained a security licence which will enable her to work as a security guard in the future.

Handwritten mitigation letters by the defendant and her friends were also submitted to the court and duly considered. Miss Wong submits that the defendant was solely a courier and that there was no aggravating factors in this case. The defendant does not rely on partial consumption in her mitigation.

Sentencing

The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for this offence for trafficking in a dangerous drug is life imprisonment and a fine of 5 million.

Applying the Herry Jane Yusuphguidelines

The six-step sentencing approach introduced by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph, as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Li Ming Ho are applied as follows:

Step one, the applicable guidelines tariff band

Step one is to identify the relevant guidelines band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drug in question. The sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang for cocaine are applied. For 92.1 grammes of cocaine, the applicable band is 8 to 12 years.

Step two, the defendant’s role and capability

The second step is to assess the role and capability of the defendant. In light of the evidence adduced and the facts admitted, in particular the circumstances the defendant was found carrying the drugs, I accept Miss Wong’s submission that the role played by the defendant was a mere courier.

Step 3, the relevant band within the guidelines

The arithmetical application of the tariffs for 92.1 grammes of cocaine would lead to a notional starting point of 9 years and 1 month’s imprisonment. Based on my finding of the defendant’s role as a mere courier and consideration of the matter, I shall adopt a starting point of 9 years imprisonment.

Step 4, aggravating factors

Although the defendant has one previous conviction from 2013, it is unrelated to drugs. I shall not treat it as an aggravating factor. There are no other aggravating factors that would warrant an enhancement.

Step 5, mitigating factors

Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the only strong mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is her guilty plea, which was entered at the earliest opportunity. Because of that, she is entitled to a full one-third discount. That brings the sentence down from 9 years’ imprisonment to 6 years’ imprisonment.

Step 6, totality

This case does not engage the situation of multiple counts or multiple aggravating factors. The sentence is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years. Ms Yeung, please stand up. The court now sentences you to imprisonment for 6 years.