COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug before a magistrate on 12 December 2024. The 1st charge alleges that on the 20th day of September 2023, at the pavement outside Faber Garden, 6 Marconi Road in Kowloon Tong, he unlawfully trafficked in 316 grammes of cocaine narcotic. The 2nd charge alleges that on the same day, at Flat B3 on the 2nd Floor of Faber Garden, he unlawfully trafficked in 1,190 grammes of cocaine narcotic.
According to the Summary of Facts to which he pleaded guilty and admitted, on 20 September 2023 the Customs officers spotted the defendant at around 4.28 pm. At that time he was acting furtively at the pavement outside Faber Garden at 6 Marconi Road, Kowloon Tong. The Customs officers intercepted him for inquiry and upon search, from a bag that was carried by him, they found two resealable plastic bags containing all the drug particularised in the 1st charge. He was also in possession of two mobile phones and a door key.
Upon his arrest, the defendant stated under caution that he did not know what was inside the bag. Someone called and asked him to collect the bag from Flat B3 on the 2nd Floor of Faber Garden, and deliver it to an unknown person. He had the key of the flat inside the pocket of his pants and he would receive $2,000 for the delivery.
At around 4.40 pm on the same day, the Customs officers escorted him to the flat at Flat B3 on the 2nd Floor of Faber Garden, and they entered by using the key found on his person. Inside the flat, they found various drug packaging paraphernalia on a table at the open kitchen including an electronic scale, a bundle of resealable plastic bags, heat-sealing machine, a vacuum packing machine, and a pair of scissors.
Also, the Customs officers found from a closet inside the room a total of five silver plates and 15 plastic packets of dangerous drug. The total drug seized from the flat was 1,328 grammes of a solid containing 1,190 grammes of cocaine.
Upon being cautioned, the defendant stated that he only used the sealer and the resealable plastic bags for packing the white substance inside the closet of the room, and he denied the ownership of the tools. He also denied knowledge and ownership of the white substance, the suspected dangerous drug. He said an unknown person called him two days ago and asked him to go up to the flat and check whether the white substance was dried, and he was asked to pack the substance and place it in the closet. He said he did not have the information of that unknown person.
Upon examination of one of his mobile phones, the Customs officers found that he had Telegram conversations with the counterpart called ‘777’ between 19 September and 20 September 2023. In those Telegram exchanges he was instructed on how to deal with the white substance.
There were photographs being sent to the defendant by that person in the evening of 19 September and the small hours of 20 September, showing some white substance placed on a silver plate and being put on an electronic scale. So that relates to the weighing of the substance.
At about 1.30 am on 20 September, the counterpart asked the defendant to repack the white substance. And then at 1.49 am, the defendant sent a photograph showing some white substance contained in a vacuumed plastic packet. So that relates to the packaging of the white substance.
At 3.44 am on 20 September, the counterpart asked the defendant to smash some of the white substance into powder form. At 1.49 am the defendant also sent a photograph to that person showing some white substance in powder form on a banknote. So that is about dealing with the white substance.
In addition, the fingerprints of the defendant were also found on the handle of the sealing machine, the wardrobe door in the room and on one of the silver plates containing the dangerous drug.
The total amount of drug seized in the 1st and the 2nd charges is 1,723 grammes of a solid containing 1,506 grammes of cocaine, with a total estimated street value of $1,897,023 if in powder form, or $2,227,839 if in crack form.
The defendant now accepts and admits that at all material times he knowingly possessed all the subject dangerous drug seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
The defendant is now 34 years of age, and he was 33 years old at the time of the offences. He is a mainlander coming from mainland China. He is not a Hong Kong citizen. He has a clear record in Hong Kong. According to the Hong Kong Immigration record, he last departed Hong Kong on 17 July 2019, and there has been no record of entry since then. So on this occasion clearly he sneaked into Hong Kong and his status was illegal. He is still an illegal immigrant in Hong Kong.
In mitigation, counsel Mr Charles Chiu informed me that the defendant is a native of the Hunan Province in mainland China, and he used to work as an electrician apprentice earning about 6,000 renminbi each month before he entered Hong Kong.
At first, in his written mitigation, counsel submitted that the defendant came to Hong Kong hoping to take a rest before finding another job in China. However, upon knowing the latest information that in fact he sneaked into Hong Kong sometime after July 2019, counsel retracted that information. Apparently, after taking instruction from the defendant this morning during the hearing, I was told that the defendant entered Hong Kong on 15 or 16 September 2023. That is about four or five days before he was arrested for the present offences.
Counsel submitted that, well, suddenly out of the blue he received a message in his mobile phone about a job which could make quick money of $2,000 a day for only two to three hours of work daily. When I asked about more information on that matter, counsel was unable to tell me because he had no further instruction on that matter.
Counsel submitted that, according to his instruction, the defendant responded to that message and he was told to go to the subject premises at Faber Garden in Kowloon Tong. So he was told to go to that place on the second day where he found a mobile phone, some drug placed on plates and all the drug packaging paraphernalia inside the flat. He also received telephone calls and messages on the mobile phone provided by the person as to what to do with the dangerous drug.
On the day that followed he went to the flat again to find out if the white substance on the plates had dried, and he acted on instruction to deliver some of the drug to somebody else. When he left the premises he was intercepted and arrested by the Customs officers.
So according to this time schedule, as we know that he was arrested on 20 September and that there were a lot of instructions with the counterpart in the evening of 19 September and in the small hours of 20 September, apparently he went to the flat on 19 September, if not earlier. That is, he went to the flat about three or four days after his alleged arrival or sneaking into Hong Kong.
Counsel submitted that even though the defendant knew that he was dealing with a dangerous drug, he did not know the type of dangerous drug involved. He committed the offences only to earn quick money and he is now extremely remorseful.
Counsel urged this court to take into account the fact that he was not the mastermind of the drug dealings, even though counsel rightly conceded that his role was more than one of merely a courier or a storekeeper because he was also engaged in the packaging and delivering of the drug and, indeed, in the smashing of the drug into powder form.
Counsel urged me to take into account the fact that he has entered a timely plea and should be entitled to the full one-third discount. Initially counsel asked this court not to enhance the sentence because he was only here in Hong Kong as a tourist or as a visitor, but with the latest information being revealed, this matter is now retracted by counsel. Anyway, counsel urged me to exercise my discretion and impose a concurrent term of sentence on both charges.
In mitigation, the defendant has also prepared a mitigating letter and submitted to me. In this letter he expressed that he is remorseful and he said that he would like to receive a lighter sentence so that he could return home as soon as possible to care for his parents.
In sentencing the defendant, I do bear in mind the principle enunciated by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75 in respect of how to sentence trafficking offences where different quantities of drug were found in the defendant’s possession on the same day but at different locations. The Court of Appeal said:
“When sentencing two trafficking offences where different quantities of dangerous drugs were found in the accused’s possession on the same day but at different locations, the judge should regard the two offences as representing one occasion of possession of the total amount of drugs and impose sentences on both offences for that total, making the sentences concurrent with one another. Such an approach more truly reflected the accused person’s culpability as the reality of the situation was that on the day of the charges the accused was in overall possession of the drugs found at the two locations. It was also an approach which ensured that the accused’s final sentence was not artificially inflated by separating out the drugs of the two charges as though the accused had been guilty of two quite separate offences and then imposing consecutive sentences.”
This is the approach that I will follow in my sentencing of the defendant for both charges.
I also bear in mind the approach in respect of trafficking in dangerous drug stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 as modified by the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
The total quantity of the drug involved in both charges is 1,506 grammes of cocaine narcotic. According to the new guideline case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, the appropriate starting point after trial for trafficking in between 1,500 and 5,000 grammes of cocaine narcotic is between 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment. That is the starting point after trial.
So on an arithmetic calculation, the arithmetic starting point for trafficking in 1,506 grammes of cocaine narcotic would be one of 20 years’ imprisonment.
I do bear in mind the role and culpability of the defendant in this case when I consider the overall starting point for both charges. I consider that in respect of his role, he was more than a mere courier or storekeeper in this case, as he had admitted. As one could see from the Telegram messages from his phone, he was actively engaged in the weighing, packaging and also dealing, like the smashing of the drug into powder form, at least on both 19 September and 20 September before his arrest.
So, bearing in mind his overall role and the culpability, I consider that the appropriate starting point should be one of 20 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. That is the starting point to be considered after bearing in mind his role in this matter.
In respect of his status in Hong Kong, at the material time he was an illegal immigrant in Hong Kong, and on the information that I obtained from defence counsel this morning, he did not enter Hong Kong until about four or five days before he was arrested.
Bearing in mind that he was instructed to deal with the drug on 19 September, that was only about three or four days after his entry into Hong Kong as an illegal immigrant, and there appeared to have no legitimate purpose for him to enter Hong Kong, certainly not as a tourist or as a visitor, I consider that indeed his main purpose of coming to Hong Kong was to deal with the dangerous drug, or to traffic in the dangerous drug. This is the main aggravating factor when I consider whether his overall starting point should be enhanced.
People coming to Hong Kong legally and, especially illegally, should be deterred from resorting to dangerous drug trafficking. On this basis, I consider that his starting point should be enhanced by one further year. So the notional starting point after trial should be 21 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
He has pleaded guilty at an early stage, and I agree that he is entitled to the full one-third discount. On that basis the notional starting point is reduced by one-third, so the ultimate sentence for both charges should be one of 14 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
I bear in mind the principles stated in the case of Wan Lau Mei, the sentence for each of Charge 1 and Charge 2 is also that of 14 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. Both sentences are to be served wholly concurrent to each other, making the ultimate sentence of 14 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.