HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN YU AND ANOTHER

HCCC 263/2024

[2025] HKCFI 3683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 263 OF 2024

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The 1st and 2nd defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 1, whilst the 2nd defendant alone faced and pleaded guilty to Charge 2. Both pleaded guilty on 12 August 2024 and were committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today, both confirmed their pleas and admission of the Summary of Facts.

The particulars of Charge 1 are that both defendants, on 15 June 2023, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 980 grammes of a solid containing 906 grammes of cocaine. The particulars of Charge 2 are that the 2nd defendant on the same day at Room 903, iclub To Kwa Wan Hotel, in Kowloon City, Kowloon, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 9.51 grammes of a solid containing 8.73 grammes of cocaine.

On 15 June 2023, Customs and Excise officers were conducting an anti-narcotics operation outside this iclub hotel when they saw the 1st defendant get out of a taxi and loiter there for about two minutes. The 2nd defendant came out of this hotel, approached the 1st defendant and gave him a paper bag. The 1st defendant then boarded the same taxi and it drove away. Customs officers followed that taxi whilst other officers kept the hotel under observation after the 2nd defendant went back inside.

The 1st defendant was followed to Sheung Shui in that taxi and when he got out he was intercepted and searched. In that paper bag handed to him by the 2nd defendant, customs officers found 47 plastic bags containing the cocaine of Charge 1.

He was arrested and cautioned. Under caution, he claimed not to know what was in the bag, who owned the contents of the bag and although he was given the bag, he did not know what he was going to do with it.

The 2nd defendant was seen coming out of the hotel with a suitcase about 40 minutes after giving the 1st defendant that paper bag. He was intercepted. He was arrested, cautioned and claimed he did not know the 1st defendant even though he had handed him a paper bag. He said he lived in Room 903 of that hotel. Phone records were checked and there were numerous communications between both defendants that day. There were messages from the 1st defendant asking what time to collect and messages revealing he had been instructed by another to collect and deliver drugs that day and even prior to 15 June 2023.

As far as the 2nd charge is concerned, the 2nd defendant’s hotel room was searched as was the 2nd defendant himself. The drugs of Charge 2 were found in a plastic bag in his rucksack. He admitted under caution he was about to deliver it to somebody. In his suitcase, customs officers found paraphernalia normally associated with cooking or converting powder cocaine to crack cocaine. He is somewhat lucky they were not found set up in his hotel room and he was charged with manufacturing dangerous drugs. The hotel records showed he had rented Room 903 for two nights between 14 and 16 June.

Both defendants admit the estimated street value of all the cocaine seized was $775,775.84. Both admit knowingly possessing all the cocaine of Charge 1 for the purposes of unlawful trafficking. The 2nd defendant admits he knowingly possessed the cocaine of Charge 2 for the same purpose.

Mitigation

The 1st defendant has two previous convictions for possession of dangerous drugs. On 8 March 2021, he was convicted in Fan Ling Magistracy and sentenced to concurrent probation orders. He is now 25 years old, single, living with his mother and was unemployed at the time of the offence. I have heard in mitigation that the defendant wanted to earn money to help his mother with their living expenses. He was offered quick money to deliver a parcel and he committed this offence. I have read letters from both the defendant and his mother. I have taken into account their contents.

The 2nd defendant had a clear record. He is now 27 years old, born and raised in Hong Kong. Prior to his arrest, he was a security guard and holding down a second job as a cook. I have heard in mitigation that he unfortunately got into debt because of an investment he made in a scam. His financial problems spiralled and he felt he had no choice but to commit these offences to make money. I have read letters from the defendant, his family, and his previous school principal. I have seen evidence of his further studying whilst in remand to try and better himself.

The best mitigation put forward for both defendants is their pleas of guilty at the earliest opportunity. Both Mr Ho and Ms See have said all they can possibly say on behalf of the defendants. I accept their remorse is genuine.

Sentencing

I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the most recent authority, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

Those six steps include assessing the gravity of the offence and applicable guideline, identifying the defendant’s role, where within the guideline the defendants should lie, any aggravating factors, any mitigating factors, and lastly passing a sentence which is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offences and the defendants.

For the 2nd defendant who faces both Charges 1 and 2, I would take a global approach and add together the drugs of both Charges. This totals 914.73 grammes of the same drug.

The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guideline according to the drugs seized, taking into account the latest guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, the starting point for trafficking in cocaine between 500 and 1,500 grammes is 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically speaking, trafficking in 906 grammes and 914.73 grammes of cocaine attracts the same starting point of 17 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

I am satisfied that the role of the defendants in this case was that of a courier and possibly storekeeper. These are positions at the bottom of the hierarchy of drug traffickers. Therefore I find a mathematical starting point should apply. I intend to take a starting point of 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for both defendants.

The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigation factors. I see no such factors in this case.

Both defendants pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and both are entitled to a full one-third discount. After that discount is applied to the starting point of 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, both defendants are sentenced to 11 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

With the last step in mind, I consider these sentences, although substantial, to be fair, just, and balanced in light of the sentencing authorities, circumstances of the offences as well as both defendants.

Accordingly, for Charge 1, both defendants are sentenced to 11 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. For Charge 2, the 2nd defendant is also sentenced to 11 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. This sentence will run concurrently with the sentence imposed for Charge 1. The 2nd defendant will serve a total of 11 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.