HKSAR v. SO HIN YU

HCCC 437/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 437 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.  The Defendant, SO Hin‑yu (“D1”), pleaded guilty on 18 December 2025 before a Magistrate to two charges and was committed to this Court for sentence.  This morning before me, he confirmed his pleas and the admission of the facts.  I have considered the admitted Summary of Facts, the mitigation submissions filed on his behalf by his counsel, the antecedents of the D1, and the authorities submitted by both parties.  In determining the appropriate sentence, I adopt the structured six‑step approach set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as modified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, and the recent guideline in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

THE CHARGES

2.  D1 faced two charges:

Charge 1: Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, involving 442 grammes of a solid containing 360 grammes of cocaine.

Charge 2: Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, involving 689.7 grammes of a solid containing 535.46 grammes of cocaine.

FACTS

3.  On 5 June 2024, at about 2042 hours, police mounted an anti‑dangerous drugs operation near Skye Parking, Chi Wa Lane, Fanling.  Police saw D1 and another male, CHONG Chin‑tong (“D2”), alight from a vehicle and walk towards the Carpark.  They approached a vehicle (NF 6980) inside the Carpark.  D1 was later seen holding a grey bag.  When officers attempted to stop them, both D1 and D2 fled.  D1 discarded the grey bag, which was recovered.  It contained 19 plastic bags with a total of 442 grammes of solid containing 360 grammes of cocaine (Charge 1).  Inside the vehicle NF 6980, police found another three bags containing 30 plastic bags containing 689.7 grammes of solid containing 535.46 grammes of cocaine (Charge 2).  The total quantity of cocaine involved in this case is therefore 895.46 grammes.

4.  D1 was arrested and admitted that he wanted to make some quick money so help other to traffic in dangerous drugs.  He admitted discarding the bag because he was afraid of being caught by the police.

THE ANTECEDENTS OF THE DEFENDANT

5.  D1 is a male, aged 25.  He was born and educated up to Form 3 level in Hong Kong.  He has been working as a part-time scaffolding worker and transportation worker until he was arrested.  He is single but he has a girlfriend.  He has a total of six criminal records since 2016 including a similar trafficking in DD record in 2023 as well as in 2026.  In 2023, he was first sentenced by the District Court to a total of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment for a Drug Trafficking offence and also a Robbery offence.  In January 2026, after he was released from the prison, he committed yet another trafficking in DD offence and a money laundering offence for which he was sentence to a total of 42 months’ imprisonment. D1 has triad background and has two Acting as member of triad society convictions in 2017.  

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

6.  I have carefully considered the mitigation submissions advanced on his behalf by his counsel, Mr. Anthony Yuen.  According to Mr. Yuen, D1’s father suffers from depression and has been out of work.  D1 became the sole breadwinner but struggled to find permanent employment.  Wanting quick money, he was lured into the offences.  He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and expressed deep remorse.  He recognises that he will receive a substantial sentence.

7.  Mr. Yuen emphasised that his role in this case was that of a courier and storekeeper and he was helping others deliver the drugs, placing him at the lowest hierarchy of traffickers.

8.  Importantly, D1 has agreed to be a prosecution witness in D2’s trial and has given four Non‑prejudicial Statements (on 29 September 2025, 17 October 2025, 28 November 2025 and 28 January 2026). This, according to Mr. Yuen, demonstrates genuine remorse and sincere assistance to the authorities.

9.  This morning, the defence further submitted two letters of mitigations for my consideration. The first letter was written by D1 himself and the other one was written by his mother. D1 has expressed regrets and remorse in his letter.  He is determined to turn over a new leaf. His mother said the whole family will support D1’s rehabilitation and asked me to be as lenient as possible.

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS

10.  Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence, carrying a maximum of life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.  In sentencing, I would apply the six‑step approach as laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph (supra.).

Step 1 – Identify the Relevant Guideline Band

11.  The total quantity of cocaine is 895.46 grammes.  Under Huang Ruifang (No 3) (supra.),the bands for cocaine are:

Quantity	Sentencing range (after trial)
500g – 1,500g	16 – 20 years
1,500g – 5,000g	20 – 24 years

12.  The quantity falls squarely within the 500g to 1,500g band, with a starting point range of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment.

Step 2 – Assess the Defendant’s Role and Culpability

13.  D1 admitted under caution that the drugs were for unlawful trafficking.  He was the person carrying the grey bag and was directly involved in the physical handling of the drugs.  However, the evidence shows he was a courier and storekeeper, not a principal organiser or financier.  His role is at the lowest level of the trafficking hierarchy.  His culpability is accordingly lower than that of a higher‑level trafficker.

Step 3 – Identify the Starting Point within the Band

14.  For a quantity of 895.46g, which is closer to the lower end of the 500‑1,500g band, and given D1’s limited role, I consider a starting point of 17 years and 7 months’ imprisonment (211 months) to be appropriate.  This aligns with the revised guidelines and properly reflects the weight of the drugs and his part in the operation.

Step 4 – Aggravating Factors for Enhancement

15.  I now consider aggravating factors personal to D1.

16.  Previous convictions for similar offences: D1 has two previous drug trafficking convictions, one of which was imposed only a few months before the present offence.  His re‑offending so soon after release is a significant aggravating factor.  I shall increase the starting point by 12 months to reflect this.

17.  The notional sentence after trial is therefore:

211 months + 12 months = 223 months (18 years 7 months).

Step 5 – Mitigating Factors for Discount

18.  I now apply all mitigating factors:

(i) Guilty plea – D1 pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, saving court time and demonstrating remorse. He is entitled to the full one‑third discount.

(ii) Assistance to the authorities – D1 has given four Non‑prejudicial Statements and will testify against D2. Mr. Yuen submitted that this is a strong indication of genuine remorse and assistance. In addition to the plea discount, he urged the court to consider allowing further 3 to 4% reduction. However, when the court decides whether to grant the defendant who has assisted the authorities a discount on that account, it should confine itself to what has occurred at the time of sentence: Secretary for justice v Wong Kwok-kau [2004] 3 HKLRD 208. Credit should only be given for what the defendant has actually done. An offender’s willingness to give evidence against his co-accused is not a mitigating factor: HKSAR v Chan Yip-chi [2001] HKCU 1386. Defence counsel should not suggest otherwise: R v Lam Kin-choi [1992] 2 HKCLR 235. In fact, this plea and sentence hearing is originally scheduled to be heard at the conclusion of the trial of D2. D1 however wrote a letter to the court in March this year and requested that he be sentenced earlier in order to relieve his stress and anxiety. I have since replied and made it clear to him in my letter to him that if his sentence is to be dealt with before D2’s trial, I will not be able to give him any further discount in sentence. I also copied the letter of this reply to Mr. Yuen so that he could properly advise D1 to see if he would still insist on his application. Mr. Yuen subsequently replied on 1 June 2026 that D1 has been duly advised of the consequences, but he confirmed that he would like to have his plea and sentence be dealt with as soon as possible. Mr. Yuen told me that D1 still maintains his willingness to testify against his co-accused (D2) if needed. This morning, I explained to Mr. Yuen that I was surprised that the defence would still urge me to consider giving further discount to D1 on account of his giving NPS statements without having actually giving evidence. I specifically stood down the case to let Mr. Yuen to speak to D1 again and to allow D1 to consider and confirm his position. Mr. Yuen informed me that D1 still desired to be sentenced knowing full well that he would not be given any extra reduction in sentence. I therefore would not grant him further reduction.

(iii) Personal mitigation – His difficult family circumstances and financial pressures are noted, but personal hardship generally carries no weight in serious drug trafficking cases.

19.  Calculation:

223 months x 2/3 = 148.66 (12 years and 4 months and 20 days).

I shall round it up to 12 years and 4 months.

20.  I therefore fix the sentence for these two offences at 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

Step 6 – Apply the Totality Principle and Finalise Sentence

21.  Although there are two charges, they arise from the same transaction and the same operation.  The drugs were seized at the same time and place, and D1’s involvement was continuous.  It is appropriate to treat them as one single course of conduct for sentencing purposes.  The sentences for both charges will run concurrently (See HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777).

22.  D1 is currently serving a total sentence of 42 months imposed on 26 January 2026 for two other offences, namely money laundering (DCCC 879/2025) and Trafficking in DD (DCCC 155/2024).  When considering the overall sentence, I must apply the totality principle to avoid a crushing or disproportionate total term.  The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Lin Chi Man and Another (CACC 159/2017) emphasised that the court should fix appropriate sentences for each offence and then structure them to achieve a just and proportionate total.

23.  The present sentence of 12 years 4 months is substantial.  To reflect the overall criminality and bearing in mind that the previous offences were separate, I order that 10 years (120 months) of the present sentence to run consecutively to the sentence he is currently serving, and the remaining 2 year and 4 months (28 months) to run concurrently.  This yields a total effective increase of 10 years over his existing term.

24.  I am satisfied that this final total sentence is fair, proportionate, and adequately punitive, while not being excessive or crushing.

CONCLUSION

25.  D1 is sentenced as follows:

Charge	Offence	Sentence
Charge 1	Trafficking in 360g cocaine	12 years 4 months’ imprisonment
Charge 2	Trafficking in 535.46g cocaine	12 years 4 months’ imprisonment
(Charge 1 and 2 concurrent)

25. Total sentence for these offences: 12 years 4 months’ imprisonment.

26.  I further order that 10 years of this sentence in the present case shall run consecutively to the sentence D1 is currently serving (DCCC 879/2025 and DCCC 155/2024).  The remaining terms of the sentence (28 months) shall run concurrently.