HKSAR v. MAU KA PO

HCCC 248/2025

[2025] HKCFI 6282

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 248 OF 2025

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty before a magistrate to one count of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs and is committed for sentence.

On 8 January 2024, the police mounted an anti-drug operation against a temporary structure at Lau Fau Shan Road, Tin Shui Wai. The police knocked on the door and the defendant responded. The police revealed their identities but the defendant did not open the door. The police then entered the structure by force and in the toilet, they found the defendant.

Upon search of the structure, the police found drugs contained in sealed plastic bags, resealable plastic bags and plastic bottles. Some paraphernalia were found including electronic scales, transparent plastic bags, spoons and a marker. Under caution, the defendant admitted she repacks ketamine for others as she was in debt.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted further that she owed money to a person named “Big Brother Gold” and he asked the defendant to repack

drugs to repay her debts. The defendant would weigh and repack drugs in the structure and deliver the drugs to an unknown driver outside the carpark near the structure. She earned $2,000 for trafficking in each 250 grammes of drugs and half of the sum would be used to repay debts.

The defendant resided in the structure together with her ex‑husband for a monthly rent of $5,200. The drugs found in the structure were later confirmed to be in total 449 grammes of a solid containing 16.8 grammes of ketamine and ‘Ice’, 402.53 grammes of a solid containing 316.09 grammes of ketamine and 17.8 grammes of a solid containing 14.4 grammes of cocaine. The quantity of ‘Ice’ involved, as mentioned earlier, is 4.45 grammes.

The defendant now admits that she conspired with other persons to traffic in dangerous drugs during the period between 8 August 2023 and 8 January 2024.

The defendant was born in December 1992 and is now 32 years old. She has a previous conviction of trafficking in dangerous drugs for which she was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment in July 2025.

The offence was committed in July 2023, which means that at the time of the commission of the present offence, the defendant had no criminal record. Thus, the defendant committed the present offence while she was on bail.

The defendant was educated up to Form 3 level. She is divorced and has no children.

In considering the appropriate sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs, I made reference to the judgments of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 and also HKSAR v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1.

The quantity of drugs involved in the conspiracy in the present case is not specified. In HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing [2017] 5 HKLRD 799, the Court of Appeal stated that in this kind of situation, the sentencing court will have to do its best to arrive at the starting points based on inferences and assumptions derived from the facts in the case and if such inferences or assumptions are not clear-cut ones, they will inevitably lean in favour of the defence.

However, in the present case, apart from the quantity of drugs found inside the structure and the length of the period of conspiracy, there is no other relevant factor available for assessing the quantities of drugs involved in or gravity of the conspiracy.

In the present case, apart from the fact that the defendant has admitted that she has conspired with others to traffic in dangerous drugs for the period of five months, the facts are not much different from those usual cases where a quantity of drugs are found and the defendant admitted trafficking in dangerous drugs. For those cases, the drug seized will form the basis for consideration of the appropriate sentence.

In my judgment, the fairest way to arrive at the appropriate sentence in the present case is to make reference to the quantities of drugs seized, which is also consistent with the principle that any inference or assumption to be drawn will have to lean in favour of the defendant.

As submitted by Mr Wong, counsel for the defendant, it is appropriate to adopt the combined approach in arriving at the sentence in the present case. After performing the conversion of the quantities of ‘Ice’ and cocaine to the corresponding quantities of ketamine, which is the majority of drugs in this case, the overall quantity involved is equivalent to 367.89 grammes of ketamine.

And as confirmed by Miss Ma, senior public prosecutor, for the prosecution, the appropriate starting point according to the guideline in Hii Siew Cheng, assuming the role of the defendant is a mere courier or storekeeper, is 9 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.

In the present case, as the defendant had been a part of the conspiracy for five months, and she was responsible for repacking dangerous drugs in the premises she rented, I would consider her role more than a mere courier or storekeeper. In the circumstances, in my judgment, the appropriate starting point should be a period of 10 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

Having so decided, I would not enhance the sentence because of the charge being one of conspiracy. Although the present case was committed while the defendant was on bail, I am not minded to further enhance the sentence because of that. And in considering the appropriate sentence, I have treated the defendant as a first offender.

There is no other mitigating factors apart from the defendant’s guilty plea. Given a full one-third discount for that, the defendant’s sentence is therefore reduced to a period of 7 years’ imprisonment.

Having considered the overall gravity of the present offence and the principle of totality, I am of the view that 4 months of the sentence of the present sentence be served concurrently with her previous sentence, and 6 years and 8 months be served consecutively.