COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted the summary of facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 17 October 2024. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed his plea and his admission to the summary of facts through counsel.
The particulars of the charge state that on the 1st day of April 2023, outside Ming Yu House, Kin Ming Estate, No. 3 Kan Hok Lane, Tseung Kwan O, New Territories, Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 698 grammes of a mixture containing 564 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.
The summary of facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows. At about 5.10 pm on 1 April 2023, police officers were on duty in a police vehicle in the Tseung Kwan O area when they spotted a private vehicle (“YN951”) parking illegally outside Ming Yu House, Kin Ming Estate, Tseung Kwan O, New Territories, Hong Kong.
There were two male persons inside YN951. Chan Chun-kit (“Chan”) was the driver and the defendant was the passenger sitting at the front passenger’s seat respectively. The officers decided to stop the police vehicle and go up for an enquiry. However, once the police vehicle stopped next to YN951, the defendant and Chan appeared very nervous and kept looking around. Chan also sought to drive YN951 away. One of the police officers shouted and Chan stopped the vehicle.
Feeling suspicious, the officers went up and told the defendant and Chan to get out of the vehicle for a search. Upon search, nothing suspicious was found from their persons. On the other hand, a paper box (“the Box”) was found under the front passenger’s seat of YN951. Inside the Box, there was a transparent bag containing suspected heroin (“E1”).
It has now been confirmed by the Government Laboratory that E1 was a plastic bag containing 698 grammes of a mixture containing 564 grammes of heroin. The street value of E1 was HK$444,432.
The defendant was arrested. Under caution, he remained silent.
The defendant lived in a public housing unit in Ming Yu House. Upon viewing the CCTV of the lift lobby of Ming Yu House, the police found that at about 4.56 pm on 1 April 2023, the defendant had carried the Box out of the building.
Upon examination, the defendant’s fingerprint was found inside the Box.
Regarding the personal background of the defendant, he is 25 years of age. The defendant has received education up to primary 6 level. Prior to his arrest, the defendant used to work as a motorcycle repair technician. The defendant is now divorced. Prior to his arrest, he used to live with his wife and a son who is 9 years old. After his arrest, his wife and son moved out and lived separately.
I am told that the defendant committed the present offence foolishly as a courier out of financial reasons in order to support his family’s living because he could not make ends meet. His father was out of work because of a knee injury and the defendant’s mother had suffered from mental illness since 2015.
The defendant has two previous convictions, neither of which concern dangerous drugs.
The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band or bracket applicable to the quantity of drug concerned. The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence before the court. The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes. It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant. The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”. The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little unless they are exceptional”. The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced sentence”.
Regarding the first step, for 564 grammes of heroin, the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234 at paragraph 62.
Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a courier of the drug.
Third, for 564 grammes of heroin, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a “notional sentence after trial” of 16 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. I see no reason for any upward adjustment on account of the defendant’s role and culpability.
Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the notional sentence after trial.
Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is his timely plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount.
Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reduced to 10 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
Finally, I consider that a sentence of 10 years and 10 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence, taking into account all the circumstances of the case and the circumstances of the defendant.
Defendant, you are accordingly sentenced to 10 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.