HKSAR v. TAI TSZ KWAN

DCCC 696/2025

[2025] HKDC 1430

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 696 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  During an anti‑narcotics operation on 28 November 2024 conducted by police, the defendant was intercepted on the 5^th floor of an industrial building in Kwun Tong. She was seen to be leaving Unit 13.

2.  The police found on her person a quantity of dangerous drugs: ketamine in 15 bags and 40 bags of cocaine. In addition, there was a device and in which nicotine was detected. 

3.  The police also found in the Unit 31 bags of ketamine and 51 bags of cocaine, together with paraphernalia of packing and measuring dangerous drugs: namely three electric scales, some plastic bowls, a large quantity of plastic bags some of which is of a resealable type, scissors, and also a heat-sealing machine. 

4.  On the above facts, the defendant was charged with two counts of “Trafficking in dangerous drugs” and one count of “Possession of Part I poison”. He was committed of all the charges, upon his plea and admission of fact.

5.  As the two counts of trafficking were committed in more or less the same time and under caution the defendant admitted trafficking of the same, I would deal with the two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs together as if it was one offence.  There were in all 46 bags of ketamine and the total quantity being 35.52 grammes and 91 bags of cocaine, total quantity was 14.23 grammes. 

6.  Trafficking in dangerous drugs have always been considered a serious offence from which spring a multitude of societal problems. From the facts available, it seems that the defendant was in charge of a small-scale packing centre for dangerous drugs, and the number of packages involved are seriously large. 

7.  The Court of Appeal has set out in the past clear sentencing guidelines, the validity of which has not been disputed by either side.  In the present case, a total of 55.52 grammes of ketamine falls within the band of 10 to 50 grammes, warranting a sentence of 4 to 6 years. The exact quantity of the present case should warrants 71 months’ imprisonment.

8.  The present case involved also 14.23 grammes of cocaine, which falls within the band of 10 to 50 grammes, warranting a sentencing order ranging to 5 to 8 years, therefore the sentence should be about 70 months. 

9.  The two sentence orders, if to run consecutively, would be too harsh and inconsistent with the Totality Principle. The Court of Appeal in the past has helpfully set out a number of tests to gauge the propriety of the final sentence, the calculations are not in dispute. 

10.  According to the Conversion approach, the two lots of dangerous drugs could be sentenced seperately and should come up with a total of 76 months.  If we take into account of the ratio of the two drugs, the final sentence order should be about 79 months. 

11.  If we consider all the dangerous drugs in the most serious category like cocaine, it should run to a sentence order of 90 months.  The prosecution has fairly pointed out that the absurdity test approach would not be applicable in the present case. 

12.  Having considered the facts of the case, in particular that the defendant seemed to be the only person in charge of the packaging centre and also considering the large number of bags of dangerous drugs, and that there were a huge quantity of empty plastic bags and also packaging paraphernalia, I would adopt a sentence order of 78 months for the two counts of trafficking.  Therefore, each count is to be sentenced to 78 months to run concurrently. 

13.  As to the Part 1 poison charge, there is no sentencing guideline and it is considered a rather minor offence, usually warranting a sentence order of a fine.  I therefore order the defendant to pay a fine of $2,000, to be paid by 4 pm today. 

14.  I turn to consider the circumstances of the defendant.  The defendant is 18 years old.  She has a clear record, and is unemployed at the moment.  I read the letters by her mother and also by the defendant herself.  Both of her parents acknowledged that their supervision and understanding of their daughter had not been sufficient.  The defendant also expressed regret to the incident.  The defendant came from the working class.  Both her parents are still working. She has an elder brother and an elder sister.  Hers is a family of modest means but with a steady support. 

15.  While I feel sorry for the defendant, I must bear in mind that the sentencing principle in the purpose of is not only to punish the offender herself.  The court also has a duty to set out a clear example for those who are considering offending.  In addition, the defendant, although she was young, she was not extremely young. She was 17 when the offence was committed and educated to Form 5.  She was not too young to understand what she was involved in and also to appreciate that there are consequences to her behaviour.  I therefore do not consider her youth an important mitigating factor.  The only relevant and useful mitigation in the present case is the fact she pleaded guilty in accordance with the Court of Appeal direction, I would therefore reduce the 78 months down to 52 months.