HKSAR v. NG HARRY

HCCC 273/2024

[2025] HKCFI 1953

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 273 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

The Charge

1.  On 22 August 2024, the defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The 1^st charge involved 237 grammes of a solid containing 193 grammes of cocaine.  The 2^nd charge involved 11.88 grammes of a solid containing 9.58 grammes of cocaine.  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 15 August 2024 and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed his guilty pleas to the two trafficking charges and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.  The facts of the case can be summarized as follows. 

3.  In the evening of 7 December 2023, police officers observed the defendant acting suspiciously in a carpark outside Hoi Lai Estate in Cheung Sha Wan.  The defendant was seen approaching a light goods vehicle and placing a plastic bag onto the open truck bed of the vehicle.  The defendant was then intercepted by the police.  Upon inspection, the police found inside the plastic bag a total of 16 resealable plastic bags containing the quantity of cocaine as per the 1^st charge.

4.  The defendant was then escorted back to his residence at a flat in Hoi Lai Estate.  Police officers searched the defendant’s bedroom and found in a shelf on the upper-deck bed two resealable plastic bags containing the quantity of cocaine as per the 2^nd charge, a large number of empty resealable plastic bags, an electronic scale and other items.

5.  In subsequent video-recorded interviews, the defendant stated under caution that his family had nothing to do with the offences and admitted that he slept on the upper-deck of the bed.

6.  The total narcotic content of the drugs involved in the present case is 248.88 grammes of a solid containing 202.58 grammes of cocaine.

7.  The estimated street value of all the cocaine seized was HK$265,582.

8.  The defendant admitted that at all material times, he knowingly possessed the dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Background and Mitigation

9.  The defendant was 15 years old at the time of the offences and he is now 17 years old.  He has received up to Form 1 education and is single.  At the time of the offence, he was unemployed and he lived with his parents in a public estate.  He has a previous conviction of robbery in 2021 for which he was sent to a reformatory school, and convictions of voyeurism in 2022 for which he was sent to a detention centre.

10.  Through his counsel, the defendant has submitted three letters to the Court in mitigation.  One was written by the defendant himself, expressing his remorse for the offences.  The other two were written by his parents and sister respectively, pleading for leniency and confirming their family support for the defendant.

11.  Mr. Raymond Yu, counsel for the defendant, accepted that the usual starting point for the total quantity of cocaine in question is one of 12 years’ imprisonment but he submitted, inter alia, that it should be lowered given the defendant’s relative youth and limited involvement in the offences: see SJ v Tang King Wa [2023] 2 HKLRD 1440 at §50.  Mr. Yu further submitted that a full one-third discount should also be given by virtue of the guilty pleas entered at the earliest opportunity.

Sentence

12.  In sentencing the defendant, I will follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

13.  The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drug in question.  The total quantity of cocaine is 202.58 grammes and that warrants a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

14.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court.  In short, the defendant delivered some of the dangerous drug to a vehicle at a carpark in a public estate and kept the remaining drug at the flat where he lived.

15.  The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band the defendant should come.  In my assessment, the defendant’s role is no more than that of a courier cum storekeeper. 

16.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  In the present case, the defendant has two previous convictions which are not related to dangerous drugs and I shall disregard them.

17.  The fifth step is to take into account the mitigating factors, if any.  As submitted by Mr. Yu, given the defendant’s relative youth, his limited role in the offences and the fact that he was likely manipulated by older criminal minds and influenced into committing these offences, I consider that the starting point could be properly adjusted down to 10 years’ imprisonment.  Further, a strong mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is his guilty pleas which were entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount. That brings the overall sentence down from 10 years to 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  

18.  For the 1^st charge, I would impose a sentence of 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, that is reduced from a starting point of 11 years and 10 months.  For the 2^nd charge, I would impose a sentence of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, that is reduced from a starting point of 4 years and 10 months.   I would order the sentences for the 1^st and 2^nd charges to be served concurrently.  The total sentence to be served is therefore 6 years and 8 months’imprisonment.  

19.  Lastly, I consider these sentences fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offences and the defendant.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years and 8 months.

Exhibits

20.  Order in terms of the Prosecution’s application, not objected to by the Defence, was granted.