HKSAR v. WANG BOWEN

DCCC 1495/2025

[2026] HKDC 1493

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1495 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Mr Wang pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. Particulars are that he, on 21 May 2025, at Room M266, Customs Departure Hall, Hong Kong – Macau Ferry Terminal, Sheung Wan, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 5.86 grammes of a solid containing 5.63 grammes of cocaine, and 3.82 grammes of a solid containing 3.23 grammes of ketamine.

Facts admitted by Mr Wang

2.  On 21 May 2025, at about 2215 hours, at Customs Departure Hall, HK-Macau Ferry Terminal, Mr Wang whilst carrying a suitcase and a handbag was intercepted by Customs officer.

3.  Ion-scan check on Mr Wang’s personal belongings yielded positive result for “ketamine”.

4.  Mr Wang was led to a room (Room M266)  for baggage examination and body search.  Upon search, two large zip lock bags containing the following were found in the buttocks area of the underwear that Mr Wang was wearing:-

(a)  Inside one of the 2 zip lock bags:

(i)  One plastic bag containing 0.92 gramme of a solid containing 0.79 gramme of ketamine;

(ii)  22 plastic bags containing a total of 3.25 grammes of a solid containing 3.11 grammes of cocaine; and

(b)  Inside the other of the 2 zip lock bags:

(i)  3 plastic bags containing a total of 2.90 grammes of a solid containing 2.44 grammes of ketamine; and

(ii)  18 plastic bags containing a total of 2.61 grammes of a solid containing 2.52 grammes of cocaine.

5.  Under caution, Mr Wang said the drugs were ketamine and cocaine; that he did not know to whom they belonged.  Mr Wang further said he was going to give them to a Thai friend.

6.  At the time of arrest, Mr Wang was found to be in possession of 3,500 Thai Baht, HK$2, and a mobile phone with 3 SIM cards.

7.  The estimated value of the drugs was about HK$5,920.

8.  Mr Wang now admits the dangerous drugs found on him were for the purpose of trafficking.

Criminal record

9.  Mr Wang has a clear record in Hong Kong.

Antecedents

10.  Mr Wang, a Mainlander, is aged 30 (29 at the time of the offence), other personal particulars unknown.

Mitigation

11.  Mr Jeffrey Lai of counsel mitigated on behalf of Mr Wang.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

12.  Mr Wang came from Hebei.  He was educated to high school level.  He is engaged and has a 2 ½ year old son.  He worked in livestream e-commerce earning an income of about RMB300,000 per month.

13.  Mr Wang had a heavy drinking habit and eventually fell prey to drug use starting 2024.  The cause was the immense stress and burden resulting from his father’s long-term illness since 2021 (see copy medical record submitted).

14.  It was submitted that a substantial part (1/2)  of the dangerous drugs seized was for Mr Wang’s self-consumption.

15.  There are sentencing guidelines for the offence of Trafficking in dangerous drug.

16.  For cocaine, the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 stipulates the starting point for trafficking in up to 10 grammes of the drug to be 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment.

17.  For ketamine, Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 stipulates the starting point for trafficking in between 1 and 10 grammes of the drug to be 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment.

18.  Concerning the treatment of cocktail drugs, Mr Lai invites the court to apply the latest practice promulgated in HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885: the Court of Appeal reformed the sentencing approach for mixed drugs and ruled that the “absurdity test” and “conversion test” no longer served any useful or principled purpose.  Instead, the Court now adopts a direct comprehensive evaluation:

(1)  Establish a base starting point: Cocaine is the more potent and largest proportion drug in this case (5.63 g). Based on pure mathematical calculation under Huang Ruifang (No 3), trafficking in 5.63 g of cocaine yields a basic starting point of about 44.27 months.

(2)  Assess enhancement: 3.23 g of ketamine shall be treated as an enhancement factor on top of the base starting point. Based on pure mathematical calculation under Hii Siew Cheng, trafficking in 3.23 g of ketamine yields a basic starting point of about 29.95 months.

(3)  Totality Principle and Ratio Test: The overall starting point should be reviewed against the Totality Principle, using the “ratio test” in a secondary role as a cross-check to ensure the final starting point is logically sound and not inflated. If ratio test is to be applied, the mathematical tariff resulting from the dangerous drugs concerned in this case would be: 55.896 x 5.63/(5.63+3.23)  + 44.96 x 3.23/(5.63+3.23)  = 51.91 months.

(4)  In HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang [2012] 2 HKLRD 1116/1121 (English), the Court of Appeal is minded that if the trafficker intends to self-consume all or part of the dangerous drug seized, the discount he could get will be in the region of 10-25% from the starting point, and of course, this shall be judged on a case-by-case basis. In the case of Chow Chun Sang, the appellant alleged that more than half of the dangerous drug was for self-consumption; the Court of Appeal gave him a discount of 10%.

19.  Mr Wang pleaded guilty on the basis he purchased the drugs in Hong Kong to share with his Thai friend (an associate named “Feifei” whom he met on a flight back from Thailand)  intending to consume half portion himself on arrival in Macau; and that he transited the drugs across the border.  Mr Wang is ready to give live evidence on his addiction history, his normal consumption rate as well as how he would consume the dangerous drugs.

Mr Wang’s evidence in summary

20.  Mr Wang was a resident of Guangzhou.

21.  Before arrest, Mr Wang worked with girlfriend (with whom he has one boy aged 2½)  selling fashion online.  They earned RMB300,000 monthly on average. His girlfriend did most of the work.  He handled the minor problems such as stock-take and shipping by using his mobile phone.  His girlfriend loved him (separated since arrest)  and they shared the profits evenly.

22.  Mr Wang started using ketamine in August 2024 in Thailand.  He took ketamine by dividing the powder with poker card and sniffing by straw.  His daily consumption rate was not fixed and varied from 2 to 5 grammes.

23.  He started using cocaine in February 2025 in Hong Kong.  His male friend in Hong Kong called Chu Kwan Yu nicknamed Feifei had channel for buying drugs including cocaine.  He took cocaine by shattering the solid and putting the pieces into cigarette for smoking.

24.  On the day in question, Mr Wang’s girlfriend had gone to work.  He was at home and became bored.  He contacted Feifei who said he was playing mahjong or poker with his boss in Macau and could not leave for Hong Kong yet.  Mr Wang said he was interested in taking drugs.

25.  Feifei told Mr Wang to come to Hong Kong.  Feifei would arrange delivery of drugs to Mr Wang in Hong Kong; Mr Wang could then bring the drugs to Macau for both of them to use.

26.  Mr Wang took the evening High-speed train to West Kowloon and then took a taxi to the HK-Macau Ferry Terminal.  On the way, he stopped by to exchange some RMB into HKD.

27.  Upon arrival at the terminal, he paid for and collected the subject drugs on board a vehicle on 2/F of the building as per instructions of Feifei. Without checking, Mr Wang placed the drugs beneath his underwear.

28.  He intended to share and finish the subject drugs with Feifei within 1-2 days in Macau.

29.  Under cross-examination, Mr Wang said he did not have any channels for buying drugs in Guangzhou.

30.  Previously, he had come to Hong Kong to take drugs with friend and sometimes with girlfriend.  When he was in Hong Kong, he stayed in Rosewood Hotel or Service Apartment on top of K11 Shopping Mall.

31.  Mr Wang could choose whether to take drug or not but he always felt like taking it.

32.  The reason why Mr Wang did not tell Customs officers formally part of the drugs was for his own consumption was his mind was in a mess.

Sentence

33.  I have considered the evidence of Mr Wang especially the rate of consumption of the subject drugs by two persons within 1-2 days.

34.  No expert has been called in this case on daily consumption rate of cocaine or ketamine.  For this reason, I turned to what expert evidence I could find in past cases.  I found the daily consumption rate of cocaine in HKSAR v Fan Chi Ho [2020] HKDC 478, at para 119; and the daily consumption rate of ketamine in HKSAR v Huang Jun Tao [2021] HKDC 1562, at para 20.

35.  I found that two heavy users of cocaine could finish the cocaine in this case within 2 days; and two users of ketamine could finish the ketamine in this case within two days.

36.  Considered together with his other evidence and the way in which Mr Wang gave it, I accept what he said on the balance of probabilities.  As a result, I will give Mr Wang a discount of 25% off the final starting point before taking 1/3 off for his plea of guilty.

37.  I adopt the six-step approach in sentencing a drug trafficker as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

38.  I adopt the lately-promulgated practice stipulated in Yau Kai Fung for dealing with a case involving multiple-drugs.

39.  I agree with all the arithmetic calculation results worked out by Mr Lai.

40.  I adopt as the base drug cocaine because of its potency and its weight in this case.  I adopt as the initial starting point 44 months’ imprisonment. Because of the presence of the other drug ketamine, I add to the initial starting point 7 months to reach the starting point on the basis of weight alone to 51 months’ imprisonment.  This incidentally is still less than the ratio test result so I know I am not overreaching to a disproportionate figure.

41.  According to Mr Wang’s case, he was a social trafficker intending to share the subject drugs equally with a friend he originally met on a flight from Thailand.  I accept his case.  He played no more than the role of a courier on the trip in question.  As such, he belonged to the lowest culpability category of traffickers such that there is no need to enhance the starting point on the basis of his role and culpability save one aspect.

42.  That aspect is the cross-border element in the offence in question.  Mr Wang intended to and was about to carry the drugs across the border to Macau. According to HKSAR v Raman Kapusamy [2024] 2 HKLRD 955, paras 61-68, that touches on the role and culpability of the offender.  For this reason, I will add 3 months to the starting point to reach a starting point of 54 months’ imprisonment.

43.  Next, I consider if there are any aggravating factors.  In this case, there is an aggravating factor in that Mr Wang trafficked in more than one type of serious drug.  For this reason, I will increase the starting point further by 3 months to reach the starting point of 57 months’ imprisonment.

44.  Next, I consider if I should deal with the aggravating factor of an offender coming to Hong Kong specifically to commit a crime.  Mr Lai argued against the proposal by comparing this case against the case of an international passenger X bringing drugs into Hong Kong.  Mr Lai argued that to enhance the starting point of X would be to punish him twice.  While Mr Lai may have a point in relation to X, Mr Wang’s case may be said to be different.  Mr Wang did not bring drugs into Hong Kong; he came to Hong Kong to buy drugs with a view to bringing them out.  The culpabilities are wholly different.

45.  I am satisfied that the two cases may be distinguished from one another.  However, I note that I have up to this point raised the starting point on weight alone twice by a cumulative period of 6 months.  I believe that is sufficient for Mr Wang and I shall not raise the starting point further.

46.  For his self-consumption of a significant proportion of the drugs, I will downsize his starting point thus far obtained by 25% to reach the notional sentence after trial of 42¾ months’ imprisonment.

47.  Mr Wang pleaded guilty to the offence in good time.  He shall be entitled to the full 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.  I should perhaps mention for a serious offence such as the present, a previous clear record carries little weight.

48.  I now stand back to consider if the resulting sentence is fair, just, and balanced having regard to the offence and the offender.  Trafficking (even social trafficking)  of multiple drugs across border is a serious offence.  I therefore conclude that the resulting sentence has no difficulty of meeting such a threshold.

(Mr Wang, please stand)

49.  The sentence for Mr Wang is 28 months and 15 days’ imprisonment.