HKSAR v. POON CHI HO

HCCC 102/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3830

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 102 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The Defendant was charged with one count of “Conspiracy to traffick in a dangerous drug”, namely between a day unknown in August 2023 and 18 April 2024, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, conspired with a person known as “Siu Fei” to unlawfully traffick in a dangerous drug, namely cannabis in herbal form, contrary to sections 4(1)(a), (3) and 39 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200 (“the Charge”).

2.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to the Charge on 9 March 2026 before a Magistrate and was committed to this Court for sentence.

3.  The Defendant confirmed his guilty plea and admission to the Summary of Facts. He was convicted as charged accordingly.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

4.  On 18 April 2024, at around 4:12pm, police officers laid ambush at the staircase on 3/F, King Wing House, Shan King Estate, Tuen Mun. At around 5:18pm on the same day, the Defendant arrived at and entered Room 341 (“the Flat”). Two minutes later, the Defendant left the Flat and was intercepted by the police.

5.  Upon house search by the police, 14 sealed packets containing cannabis and 2 opened packets containing cannabis were found inside the Flat. There was also  paraphernalia associated with packaging and weighing drugs including an electronic scale, a vacuum sealer, and one roll of plastic bags. 

6.  At around 5:22pm on the same day, the Defendant was arrested. Under caution, the Defendant said he needed money so he helped another person to distribute cannabis to earn money. He also said that, apart from the cannabis in the Flat, he had also stored some cannabis in a container in Shek Wu Wai, Yuen Long. He informed the police he had the key to the said container and was willing to take the police to the container. Upon search, two sets of keys and an electronic remote control were found inside the Defendant’s sling bag.

7.  At around 7:35pm on the same day, the police and the Defendant arrived at Wing Cheong Farm, Shek Wu Wai, Yuen Long. The police opened the door to a white container there (“the Container”) with the electronic remote control seized from the Defendant. Upon search, the police found the following items:

(a) One carton containing 25 sealed packets containing cannabis;

(b) One carton containing 27 sealed packets containing cannabis;

(c) One carton containing 27 sealed packets containing cannabis;

(d) One padlock; and

(e) One electronic scale.

8.  Under caution, the Defendant said that the cannabis found in the Container  belonged to him and that he was responsible for distributing them. He also said the cannabis found in the Flat originated from the Container.

9.  The Defendant said the following in the subsequent video-recorded interview:

(a) He met a person called "Siu Fei" at an amusement arcade about a year ago. "Siu Fei" referred the Defendant to a job of distributing cannabis in around mid-August to September 2023 because the Defendant was unemployed. The Defendant took up the job since then and had been following "Siu Fei"’s instructions to traffick in cannabis;

(b) The Defendant would contact the buyers through mobile numbers provided by "Siu Fei", and deliver to the buyers in person. He usually stored about 3 – 4 kilogrammes of cannabis in the Flat. Between his receipt of the cannabis and the day of arrest, he had delivered cannabis for Siu Fei for about 4- 5 times at around 1 kilogramme each time for a reward of HK$1,000. He last distributed cannabis the week before;

(c) The Defendant leased the Container as a warehouse for storage of cannabis from March 2024. The rental fees were paid by "Siu Fei." No other persons visited the Container except "Siu Fei" and the Defendant;

(d) The cannabis found in the container was kept there for distribution on behalf of "Siu Fei". The Defendant received 3 cartons of cannabis from a shipment from Kwai Chung Container Port and accompanied the deliveryman to deliver the same to the Container. He stored the said cannabis in the Container. He unpacked the same and awaited "Siu Fei’s order. Upon receiving the order, he would contact the buyer for delivery;

(e) According to the call record and chat record between "Siu Fei" and the Defendant found on the Defendant’s phone, he was supposed to deliver 1kg of cannabis, with an additional “gift” packet of 10 to 20g in cannabis, to a buyer in Mong Kok prior to his arrest;

(f) He repackaged cannabis according to Siu Fei’s instructions;

(g) He last retrieved those cannabis from the Container to be brought to the Flat on the previous Sunday; and

(h) Two sets of keys were found on the Defendant, for access to the Flat and the Container respectively.

10.  Footage from a CCTV camera next to the Container shows that prior to the arrest, the Defendant had visited the Container 4 times.

11.  The total amount of the cannabis found was 46.733 kilogrammes in herbal form, with an estimated street value of approximately HK$10,141,061 (as of April 2024).

12.  A lease agreement was executed between the Defendant and Mr. Choi, the director of the company which owned the Container and the land on which the Container was located, for the Container between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2026.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

13.  The Defendant is 47 years old. His wife lives in Mainland China. He used to work as a cook in a factory canteen, earning around HK $10,000 a month.

14.  The Defendant was educated up to Form 3. Prior to the arrest, he was the sole breadwinner of the family and contributed HK $3,000 monthly towards his mother’s living expenses. 

15.  Mr. Michael Cheung, Counsel for the Defendant, submits to the Court that the Defendant was in extreme financial difficulties, as he had to support his mother and his wife. Mr. Cheung also submits that the Defendant had undergone an operation in August 2023 to remove his abdominal pain, which made him unable to stand or work for a long period due to abdominal pain. He then borrowed a loan from his friend and accumulated a debt of about HK $30,000. 

16.  Mr. Cheung further submits that the Defendant was referred to the job of distributing cannabis in around mid-August to September 2023 as he was unemployed. He received $5,000 in or about March to April 2024 from trafficking in cannabis. The Defendant is now remorseful and promises not to break the law again.

17.  Mr. Cheung is of the view that the  Defendant was a courier and storekeeper and  his role was at the lowest hierarchy in the type. He further suggests that although the facts of the case show the Defendant received 3 cartons of cannabis from a shipment in March 2024 from Kwai Chung container port, which constituted an international element, the Defendant’s role was the same as someone who collects a parcel from the post office, being the lowest rank in the hierarchy.

18.  The Defendant has a hitherto clear record.

SENTENCING

19.  The sentencing principles in respect of conspiracy to traffick in dangerous drugs are provided in HKSAR v Chan Kam Loi(unreported, CACC 410/2012, 30 January 2014), which was followed in HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing[2017] 5 HKLRD 799. Quantity of the drugs is not the only matter relevant to the assessment of gravity, but it provides the Court with a ready means of identifying an appropriate starting point: see Chan Kam Loi at paragraph 100. As admitted by the Defendant, he had conspired to traffick in 46.733 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis. The Court should also take into consideration the admission made by the Defendant that he had already delivered 4 to 5 kilogrammes of cannabis for Siu Fei prior to his arrest. It should also be noted that the conspiracy in question involved multiple offences of trafficking.

20.  I have carefully considered the nature and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, the facts of this case, the personal background of the Defendant, and the mitigation put forward by Mr. Cheung. 

21.  The guidelines and 6-step approach as set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, with the principle modified in the recent authority of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[2024] 1 HKLRD 1186, as well as the revised guidelines for trafficking in herbal cannabis as set out in the case of HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329, are applied.

Step One: Trafficking Guideline

22.  The present case concerns about 50 kilogrammes (46.733 kilogrammes + 4 kilogrammes) of herbal cannabis. According to Nguyen Thang Loi, the tariff band for over 45,000 grammes but under 90,000 grammes of herbal cannabis is 96 to 120 months’ imprisonment.

Step Two: The Defendant’s role and culpability

23.  The second step is to assess the Defendant’s role and culpability.

24.  In relation to the role of the Defendant, the Court of Appeal held in HKSAR v Islam Shafiqul [2020] 5 HKLRD 471 that an offender who had keys to drug-storage premises, packaging equipment, and drug transaction records was more than a mere courier and was operating a packaging and distribution centre. 

25.  In HKSAR v Chan Wai Hang & Others [2025] HKCA 960, an enhancement of 3 months’ imprisonment was deemed appropriate by the Court of Appeal for the defendants who were operating a packaging and distribution centre. That case concerned 27,297.8 grammes of herbal cannabis, and drug paraphernalia and packaging equipment were found.

26.  In my assessment, the role of the Defendant in the present case is more than a courier or storekeeper. He possessed the keys and the electronic remote control to the Flat and the Container, and actively engaged in repackaging work and delivery. He also rented the Container. An enhancement of sentence is warranted to reflect this greater role. 

27.  Defence counsel appears to accept that there is an international element in this case. It is believed that he was referring to paragraph 6(d) of the Summary of Facts. However, the Court is of the view that there is insufficient evidence to prove that element in the present case. Unless clear-cut, inferences should lean in favour of the defence.

Step Three: Starting Point

28.  On a purely arithmetical calculation, the notional starting point after trial for trafficking in about 50 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis would be 8 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. 

29.  To reflect the Defendant’s culpability and role as more than a mere courier, a further enhancement of 3 months is warranted. I therefore adopt 8 years 5 months’ imprisonment as the notional starting point. 

Step Four: Aggravating Factors

30.  There are no further aggravating factors in this case.

Step Five: Mitigating Factors

31.  The Defendant pleaded guilty, for which he is granted the full one-third discount. As for the personal circumstances of the Defendant, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that they carry little weight in serious drug trafficking cases. However, I am of the view that the initiative taken by the Defendant to assist the Police at the time of arrest, namely telling the Police about the Container and taking the Police to it, stands to his credit and goes beyond the usual one-third discount. I would allow an extra two-month discount for that. 

Step Six: Overall Sentence

32.  After applying the one-third discount and the additional 2-month discount, the sentence of the Defendant is reduced to 5 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

ORDER

33.  Accordingly, the Defendant is sentenced to 5 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.