COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug at Eastern Magistrates’ Court in January 2026 and agreed to a set of facts which he confirmed today. He was committed to the High Court for sentence for which purpose he appeared this morning before me.
The facts giving rise to the two offence charged are these.
In the afternoon of 4 October 2023, the defendant was intercepted when he emerged from Unit 4, Room 910, Wing Fat Industrial Building known as “Location 1”. Two sets of keys were found on his person. Using one set of the keys found, the police gained entry into Location 1 and found upon search 54 packets containing 24.103 kilogrammes in total of herbal cannabis, which is the subject matter of the 1st count of trafficking.
There were also found drug packaging paraphernalia including vacuum sealer, electronic balance, a pair of gloves, and a quantity of resealable plastic bags. The other set of keys found on the defendant was later used to open another premises at an industrial building nearby, which is
Room 212B, 2nd Floor, Kam Hon Industrial Building, in Wang Kwun Road, Kowloon Bay known as “Location 2”.
The police seized from Location 2, 72 packets containing 35.59 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis, subject matter of the 2nd count of trafficking.
Under caution, the defendant admitted that he helped a man named X selling drugs in order to earn quick money. He said he needed the money and asked for a chance.
The total weight of the cannabis found was 59.693 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis, with a market value of approximately HK$10.15 million.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted that male X, his secondary schoolmate, asked him to help traffic in drugs, which he agreed as he needed money. Location 2 was rented by male X and he had accompanied X to sign the tenancy agreement of Location 2 a few days after Mid-Autumn Festival of the same year.
A few days before his arrest, X and another man nicknamed Fei Chai took the cannabis from Location 1 and moved those cannabis to Location 2. On 3 October 2023, a day before the arrest, they also moved some cannabis from Location 2 back to Location 1 for arrangement. The defendant was at Location 1 when the police intercepted him because he went back to Location 1 to check if he had left anything after working there on 3 October. He admitted having attended Location 1 for about two to four times to help pack the cannabis. He said the two sets of keys were given to him by male X to facilitate him to attend and access Location 1 and Location 2.
The defendant accepts that at the material time of the two offences, he knowingly possessed the whole quantity of herbal cannabis seized from the two locations for the purpose of unlawful trafficking in their entirety.
In mitigation, it was said on behalf of the defendant that he was young and being exploited at the time of the offences. He is now 22 years and 5 months old, but at the time of the offences, he was only 19 years old. He lived with his parents and sister, who are present in court today to give him support. Also present in court today are his three former secondary schoolmates.
It was said that the defendant was not a drug user and prior to his arrest, he had worked at the 7-Eleven convenience store for a year and at McDonald’s for half a year. He had received education up to Form 4. It was also emphasised
that he has no previous criminal convictions, which the court takes into account and will give proper weight.
I have also read the mitigation letters written by the defendant himself, his mother, as well as his elder sister. There are also, submitted to court, a certificate of award and a photograph of the medals won by the defendant for his sports achievement. It is said that the defendant is remorseful and promised not to break the law again.
In summary, it was said on behalf of the defendant that he was led astray by bad influence and ended up in the legal net. While the court has some sympathy on the background of the defendant and to some degree accepts that he was led astray and influenced by others, it is established by authorities that in this particular branch of sentencing, personal circumstances would generally count for little.
Sentencing
In applying the relevant sentencing principles and the guidelines as applicable to herbal cannabis, the six-step approach set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph as expounded in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186 should be followed. According to HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1326, trafficking in 45 to 90 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis would attract a sentence range of 8 to 10 years.
It is appropriate in the present case to adopt the combined approach and measure sentence with reference to the total quantity of herbal cannabis seized from the two locations. Given the total quantity of herbal cannabis seized in the present case, namely, 59.69 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis, the starting point for sentence should be, upon calculation, 103.8 months.
As I have mentioned, I accept that the defendant’s role in the present case was one of a courier or storekeeper, being the lowest rank in the hierarchy, albeit that he was in possession of two sets of keys to the two locations and as he had admitted, he was involved in moving the cannabis between the two locations as well as packaging the cannabis for two to four times.
The starting point of 103.8 months would be appropriate in my view to reflect the culpability of the defendant. And I accept that there are no aggravating factors bearing upon the notional sentence after trial as just identified.
His plea of guilty would afford him a one-third discount of sentence from that starting point just identified. The resulting sentence upon discount for one-third would be
69.2 months. I am prepared to round that figure down to 69 months.
The resulting sentence taking into account the total quantity of drugs involved would therefore be 5 years and 9 months. There are no further mitigating factors that would justify further reduction in that sentence and the overall sentence of 5 years 9 months represents a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
For the sake of clarity and to assist computation of the individual sentence on each of Count 1 and Count 2, I would impose these sentences on Count 1 and Count 2 individually. For Count 1, the individual sentence would be 50 months’ imprisonment. For Count 2, given the quantity of drugs involved in that count, the individual sentence would be 57 months.
To make a total sentence of 5 years and 9 months or 69 months, I would order 12 months of the sentence on Count 1 to run consecutively to the sentence of 57 months on Count 2, making a total sentence of 69 months.
For both counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs you pleaded guilty to, you are sentenced to 69 months’ imprisonment.