COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug. On 30 September 2024, he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today, he confirms his pleas and the admission of the Summary of Facts. Both charges were committed on the same day.
On 28 November 2023, at Room 3616, Wong Yet House, Queen’s Hill Estate, Fanling, the defendant, together with other persons unknown, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 6,388.2 grammes of a mixture containing 5,381.8 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (the particulars of Charge 1).
On the same day, outside Ground Floor of Wong Yet House, the defendant, together with other persons unknown, unlawfully trafficked in 352 grammes of a mixture containing 294 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (the particulars of Charge 2).
The police on that day, clearly acting on information, mounted an anti-narcotics operation outside Wong Yet House. At about 6.15 pm, the defendant was intercepted outside the entrance of that house. The defendant lived on the 36th floor of that house. He was searched and nothing suspicious was found. He was then taken upstairs to his home and his bedroom searched. The police found all the drugs of Charge 1 in his bedroom in a drawer.
The defendant was arrested and under caution admitted he had been recruited by “Ah Cheung” to traffic that amount of heroin for a reward of $4,000. He confessed to the police that he had just been to collect one block of heroin as instructed but had dumped it outside Wong Yet House just before he was intercepted by the police. The police then subsequently retrieved it from near a flower bed and found the drugs of Charge 2 in a plastic bag.
Under caution, the defendant gave the police more details and made a frank admission. He met Cheung earlier that month and told him he was in need of money. He was recruited to deliver heroin for a reward. His phone contained WhatsApp conversations and messages between them relating to collecting and delivering drugs. The defendant admits that the estimated street value of the drugs at that time was $5,297,797.
Mitigation
I have heard full mitigation from defence counsel, Ms Tsang. She has said all she can say on behalf of the defendant. At the time of his arrest and these offences, the defendant was only 14 years old. She stresses that his extreme youth is an exceptional mitigating factor. He had no previous criminal convictions. He was born in the Mainland and moved to Hong Kong when he was 2 years old. He grew up in a working class intact family, and whilst his parents both worked, he was left in the care of his maternal grandmother. They all lived together.
The defendant dropped out of school whilst still a Form 3 student. There is history behind this. About a year before his arrest, he became rebellious, wayward and his parents were unable to control him. He then dropped out of school. He mixed with older undesirable peers who introduced him to drugs, plying him with drugs for free. He became a regular abuser of cocaine.
His parents sought help from the Social Welfare Department and I have seen urine tests from March and April 2023 where the defendant tested positive for cocaine. I have a letter from the Social Welfare Department to the police recommending that they take immediate action. The Social Welfare Department and his parents wanted the defendant to be placed under a care and protection order to be imposed by the juvenile court. That letter is dated 9 November 2023, just over two weeks before his arrest. The police had not yet acted on a possible care and protection order before he was arrested.
The defendant was essentially targeted, plied with free drugs until he became a regular user but had no income to then buy his own. He was referred to Cheung who offered him a solution; help Cheung store and deliver drugs for money with which he could then buy his own. At the age of 14, he was manipulated and lured into working for a drug trafficking operation.
I have received letters from social workers, the defendant’s family members, youth workers and the defendant himself. I have read all the letters. The defendant acknowledges he has made a mistake that has ruined his future. He is ashamed of the severe impact on his parents. He regrets his actions and now knows that drugs are a scourge and contribute to, I quote, “the deterioration of social order and public morality”.
The social worker has told me that the defendant spent many hours drafting this mitigation letter to express himself sincerely and show real remorse. It certainly, from my reading, appears very sincere. I note he has tried to provide information to the police but it was of no practical use.
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.
There are two charges here, but I will take a global approach and add the drugs of both charges together to consider an appropriate starting point. Both offences were committed on the same day and closely related.
Those six steps include assessing the gravity of the offence and applicable guideline, identify the defendant’s role, where within the guideline the defendant 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 offence and the defendant himself.
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 heroin, between 5,000 and 15,000 grammes, is 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically, trafficking in 5,675.8 grammes attracts a starting point of 24 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
I am satisfied that the role of the defendant in this case was that of a storekeeper and courier - that is a position at the bottom of the hierarchy of drug traffickers - therefore the mathematical starting point should apply. I take a 24 years’ starting point.
The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any mitigating factors. There are no aggravating factors.
I do accept Ms Tsang’s submission that there is an exceptional mitigating factor. I will take into account the defendant’s extreme youth; 14 years old at the time of these offences. I am prepared to accept that in this case the defendant has been deliberately manipulated and led astray by the influence of others. At 14, he would have been immature, and with an offender so young I should try to strike a balance between not only the demands of what is a proportionate punishment, but also the reform of the defendant.
In this case, rehabilitation is a matter that warrants emphasis during the sentencing process. I will reduce the mathematical starting point by 5 years to reflect the exceptional mitigating factor in this case. 14 years old is extremely young and I believe such a further reduction is appropriate to reflect the principle of rehabilitation and reform I consider applicable to this defendant.
This reduces the starting point to 19 years’ imprisonment. I reduce this by one more year because, without his confession, the dangerous drugs of Charge 2 may not have been found. This reduces the starting point to 18 years’ imprisonment. The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount. This reduces that global starting point to 12 years’ imprisonment.
The last step is to see whether the sentence passed is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances. Although it is a severe sentence, I am of the view that it is fair and just in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant, having reduced the mathematical starting point significantly to reflect his exceptional mitigation.
There is one other point emphasised by Ms Tsang, and that is he has been in remand since his arrest, but because he was a juvenile he was placed in Tuen Mun Children and Juvenile Home for 10 months before plea could be taken. As soon as he indicated his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, Ms Tsang applied for the defendant to be detained in Correctional Services Department custody because time spent in Correctional Services custody counts towards the sentence to be imposed whereas time spent in a juvenile home does not. This is a fair point.
Therefore, I will reduce that sentence by a further 12 months to take this rather unique situation into account.
Accordingly, for the 1st charge, the defendant is sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment. For the 2nd charge, the defendant is sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment. Both sentences will run concurrently, therefore the defendant will serve a total of 11 years’ imprisonment.