HKSAR v. TAI KA PEI

HCCC 236/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2195

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 236 OF 2025

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty before a magistrate for one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He is now committed for sentence.

On 23 September 2023, at around 2.40 in the morning, the defendant was intercepted by the police when he was sitting at the driver’s seat in a private vehicle parked near the junction of Wah Sing Street and Kung Yip Street, Kwai Chung.

Upon search, drugs were found hidden in different places inside the vehicle. It was later confirmed that the drugs found in the vehicle consisted of different kinds of drugs, namely, 19.4 grammes of a solid containing 16.29 grammes of cocaine, 26.55 grammes of a solid containing 22.96 grammes of ketamine, and 17.3 grammes of cannabis in herbal form.

Records show that the defendant rented the vehicle between 19 September 2023 to 19 October 2023 from a car rental company.

The defendant is now 41 years old. He was educated up to Form 2 level. He is single but has a son and two daughters. He once ran a car washing shop in mainland, but before his arrest, he worked at SF Express. He has three previous convictions, of which two were drug related. This is the first time he committed the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

In consideration of sentence, this court should apply the six-step approach set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKRLD 290, and follow the guidelines set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKRLD 138, and Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. For cannabis, the guidelines set out in HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329 should be followed.

This is a case involving three different kinds of drugs. As submitted by Mr Kuan, counsel for the defendant, in deciding the appropriate overall starting point, based on the quantities of drugs, this court will have to choose between the individual approach and the combined approach, and countercheck the outcome with the absurdity test, the conversion test and the ratio test.

Mr Kuan has helpfully set out in his written submissions the calculation and the results in applying different tests using the relevant sentencing guidelines. I will not set out in detail the results arrived at by Mr Kuan. Based on the results, Mr Kuan submitted that the combined approach should be adopted and the appropriate overall starting point shall be in the region of 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment applying the ratio test.

However, Miss Lo, Senior Public Prosecutor, submitted that if cannabis is excluded in the calculation, the results under the ratio test should be more than 6 years’ imprisonment. I note that this is a peculiar situation where the results will be less favourable to the defendant if certain drugs are excluded in calculation. But, at the end of the day, the tests adopted are for the purpose of assisting the court in arriving at a just sentence. I am of the view that, taking into account the overall circumstances, a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment is a just sentence.

Regarding the role of the defendant, I am convinced that the defendant can be regarded as a mere courier. There is, however, one aggravating factor in the present case in that different drugs are involved, which allows a wider market for selling. However, I am not minded to adjust the overall starting point upward.

As I said, the starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment is the just starting point in the circumstances. I can see no valid mitigating factor apart from the defendant’s guilty plea.

Given the full one-third discount, the sentence should therefore be 4 years’ imprisonment.