HKSAR v. TANG CHEUNG HO AND OTHERS

HCCC 351/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 351 OF 2025

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The three defendants in this case pleaded guilty to their respective charges on 9 October 2025. They were committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today they confirm their pleas and admission of the Amended Summary of Facts.

However, due to further instructions being sought, I adjourned the sentence for the 3rd defendant to another day and I will proceed with the 1st and 2nd defendant now. However, I do intend to refer to the facts pertaining to the 3rd defendant and Charge 1 for context and completeness.

The 3rd defendant pleaded guilty to the 1st charge, trafficking in a dangerous drug between 11 and 15 February 2023, in Hong Kong. He unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 50.230 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 43.751 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride. The 3rd defendant only faces Charge 1.

The 1st defendant pleaded guilty to the 2nd charge, trafficking in a dangerous drug. On 13 February 2023 at the lift lobby, 8th Floor, Tower 2, Banyan Garden, 863 Lai Chi Kok Road, Kowloon, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 0.71 grammes of a solid containing 0.55 grammes of ketamine.

The 1st and 2nd defendant both pleaded guilty to the 3rd charge, trafficking in a dangerous drug. On 13 February 2023, at the car park of Banyan Garden, 863 Lai Chi Kok Road, Cheung Sha Wan. Both unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 34.673 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 30.364 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride.

The 1st defendant pleaded guilty to the 4th charge, trafficking in a dangerous drug. On 13 February 2023, inside Flat D, 8th Floor, Tower 2 of Banyan Garden. He unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 9.79 grammes of a solid containing 7.93 grammes of ketamine and 1,508.93 grammes of a solid containing 1,258.34 grammes of cocaine.

The 2nd defendant pleaded guilty to the last charge, the 5th charge, trafficking in dangerous drugs. On 14 February 2023, at Room 1009, 10th Floor, 128 Bedford Road, Kowloon. He unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 2,910 grammes of a mixture containing 2,396 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, 964 grammes of a solid containing 677 grammes of ketamine, 265.88 grammes of a solid containing 226.22 grammes of cocaine, 53.2 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 27.7 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and 206 grammes of a solid containing 133 grammes of cocaine and 31.6 grammes of ketamine.

The facts of the case are as follows. It began with the 3rd defendant and another male loading 15 boxes onto a van hired to deliver items from A to B. This was at about 4.45 pm on 11 February 2023. The 3rd defendant boarded the vehicle with the 15 carton boxes and the hired driver. The vehicle was instructed to drive to Golden Bear Industrial Centre and there the 3rd defendant unloaded and moved all 15 boxes to

Unit 18 on the 15th Floor of Block H of Golden Bear. The 3rd defendant was the named tenant for this unit having signed a two-year lease from 26 January 2023.

Two days later, on 13 February 2023, another hired driver was instructed to collect boxes from the 1st floor of the Golden Bear Car Park. At about 2.30 pm, this driver arrived and the 3rd defendant loaded 10 of the 15 carton boxes from two days prior onto this vehicle. They were first driven to and unloaded by the 3rd defendant onto the pavement at Sui Cheung Street in Ma Liu Shui at about 3.30 pm.

A second driver was then engaged to deliver goods from that street to Banyan Garden. He arrived, and the 3rd defendant loaded the 10 carton boxes onto his vehicle. This driver drove the boxes and the 3rd defendant to the car park of Banyan Garden.

The 15 boxes of Charge 1 contained those drugs of Charge 1, a total 50.23 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 43.751 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride.

The 10 boxes of Charge 3 contained 34.673 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 30.364 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride.

When the 3rd defendant was later arrested and his mobile phone seized, Customs and Excise officers found instructions sent to the 3rd defendant on how to repack and handle the drugs from the 15 carton boxes, how to arrange for another driver to deliver 10 of the 15 boxes first to a roadside and then book another driver to pick them up and deliver them to the last location, Banyan Garden.

Photographs were found in the 3rd defendant’s phone of a bag of white powder placed on an electronic scale in the deleted photos folder of his phone. There were photos of the distinct blue logoed 15 carton boxes and handbags that were packed inside. There were photographs of a handbag placed on an electronic scale.

The car park of Banyan Garden was put under observation and customs officers spotted the 1st defendant approach that van at about 4 pm and load those 10 boxes from the van onto a trolley. He then moved the 10 carton boxes to the 8th floor of Tower 2, Banyan Garden.

Four hours later, another driver was hired by the 1st defendant to deliver boxes from Banyan Garden to Bedford Road. At about 8.25 pm, the 1st and 2nd defendants were spotted pushing two empty trolleys. Not long after that, both the 1st and 2nd defendants were seen pushing a trolley each. Both trolleys contained those 10 boxes from 8th Floor, Tower 2 of Banyan Garden to the car park. Both defendants were intercepted and arrested for trafficking the heroin found inside these 10 boxes, Charge 3.

Both men were searched and one plastic bag containing the ketamine of Charge 2 was found inside the 1st defendant’s trouser pocket.

A key to the flat on the 8th Floor of Tower 2 Banyan Garden was found on the 1st defendant and it opened Flat D. This flat was searched after both men were arrested and the dangerous drugs of Charge 4 were found inside. They were found in eight plastic bags. Other paraphernalia associated with weighing and repackaging drugs were also found.

The 1st defendant was arrested and under caution he said that the drugs found inside the premises belonged to himself and he would distribute them to other people. A tenancy agreement was found and he was the named tenant of Flat 8D from 15 July 2022 for a period of two years and the rent was $15,500 per month.

The 2nd defendant was also searched. Keys to premises Room 1009, 10th Floor, 128 Bedford Road were found on him. At 1.35 am on 14 February 2023, he was escorted to those premises and the premises searched. Customs officers found the drugs of Charge 5 inside Room 1009.

Like Flat 8D, drugs were found in many bags along with other paraphernalia associated with weighing and repackaging drugs. Under caution, the 2nd defendant said the bags on a table contained ‘Ice’ but he did not know who owned those drugs. He would be paid $1,000 every time he distributed a bag on instructions. The same went for bags of heroin and cocaine found, his reward was the same.

When his phone was seized and examined, photographs showing a bag of white powder placed on an electronic scale was located in the deleted photos folder of his mobile. The 2nd defendant was the named tenant of Room 1009 from 17 June 2022 for a period of two years and the rent was 6,900 per month.

The 2nd defendant was subsequently interviewed under caution and in a video-recorded interview he told customs officer that he was recruited by a company through a page on Facebook to collect and deliver boxes for rewards. He did not know what the 10 boxes contained that he had picked up from Flat 8D of Banyan Gardens. He admitted renting Room 1009 in his own name following instructions and took delivery of bags of substances at various times.

He did take photographs of the bags but he did not know what the substances were inside the bags. He would get phone calls to arrange delivery of bags and he would earn $1,000 every time he made a delivery. He would earn an extra $20,000 at the end of every month. This had been going on since July 2022.

After the arrest of the 1st and 2nd defendant, the 3rd defendant was arrested on 15 February approaching the Unit 18 on the 15th Floor of Block H of Golden Bear where the 3rd defendant had delivered 15 carton boxes on 11 February 2023. When he was seen opening the door with a key, he was immediately intercepted and escorted inside. Customs officers found the other five carton boxes of the original 15, many handbags containing heroin, some plastic bags containing heroin and paraphernalia associated with weighing and packaging and sealing plastic bags of drugs.

In total, 15.557 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 13.387 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride were found and seized inside this room. He was arrested and cautioned, and the 3rd defendant said the white powder belonged to him, which he was extracting from handbags but he did not know what the powder was. However, he would receive HK$40,000 after handling the white powder as instructed.

It is agreed by all defendants that the total estimated street value of all the dangerous drugs seized in this case was about $44,371,609. The defendants admit and accept they were in possession of drugs for the purposes of unlawful trafficking.

Mitigation

All counsel have filed written mitigation and have said everything they could possibly say on behalf of each defendant. I have received letters in the bundles and I have read their contents. The best mitigation for all the defendants is their pleas of guilty at the earliest opportunity. With offences of this nature and bearing in mind the quantity of drugs involved here, personal circumstances carry little weight as far as sentencing is concerned.

At the time of his arrest, the 1st defendant was 23 years old and had held several jobs since completing Form 6. He had two previous convictions, one was for possession of dangerous drugs and was sentenced to a probation order.

At the time of his arrest, the 2nd defendant was also 23 years old and had also completed Form 6. He was working as a transportation worker earning a daily wage of about $800. He lived with his mother and elder brother, his father had passed away.

Both defendants’ families are very supportive and genuinely believe they are remorseful. The 2nd defendant was tempted by the work offered on a Facebook page because at that time COVID-19 was prevalent and he was not earning enough through legitimate work. The 2nd defendant previously had a clear record.

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.

In the approach to sentencing, a number of steps have been identified which the court should take, such as assessing the gravity of the offence and applicable guideline, identifying 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 each defendant.

The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guideline according to the drugs seized. Here there are a total of four types of drugs and the most serious drug is heroin due to the overwhelming quantity of it. I intend to take a global approach and add up the amount of drugs in each defendant’s possession from all the charges they face. This would be a case where, if charged with more than one count, because of the facts, sentences would be wholly concurrent.

The sentencing guidelines for ketamine is found in the authority of SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. The latest sentencing guidelines for methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin is found in the most recent authority of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234.

I will take into account the different types of drugs I have referred to above, a cocktail of drugs for the 1st and 2nd defendant. Normally, a conversion test would produce the most realistic and fair sentence. However, in this case, the heroin alone possessed by each defendant being over 30,000 grammes or 30 kilogrammes means a starting point of over 30 years’ imprisonment at the sentencer’s discretion according to Huang Ruifang.

No meaningful conversion can be calculated or performed when the amount of heroin exceeds the cut-off sentence for heroin and cocaine. All three defendants are facing a starting point of beyond 30 years’ imprisonment.

I agree with Mr So when he submits in his mitigation that a 30-year starting point is an extremely stiff, deterrent and crushing sentence to a young man.

I appreciate counsel’s efforts in assisting me with calculating a starting point using both the individual approach and the combined approach, in particular Ms Fung for the 2nd defendant. I thank Mr So for the authorities and the Court of First Instance sentences he has included to assist me where there is such a large quantity of drugs to give me a “flavour of the spectrum of sentences”.

Can I please ask both defendants to stand up? Please stand up.

I have taken into account all the mitigation I have heard and I calculate what each defendant was in possession of at the time.

The 1st defendant faces three charges and possessed a total of 31,622.34 grammes of heroin and cocaine, as well as 8.48 grammes of ketamine.

The 2nd defendant faces two charges and possessed a total of 33,119.22 grammes of heroin and cocaine, 27.7 grammes of ‘Ice’ and 708.6 grammes of ketamine. For both men, I have added the heroin and cocaine together because the starting points would be the same according to the guidelines.

I find the following global starting points applicable to each defendant. For the 1st defendant, I will take a global starting point of 30 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

For the 2nd defendant, I will take a starting point of 31 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

I have no evidence that these two defendants were key members of a drug trafficking syndicate. I accept that their roles were limited to a storekeeper and courier. There are no aggravating or meaningful mitigating factors in this case.

Let me repeat, I have taken into account all mitigation that I have heard and read. The 1st defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for his plea at the earliest opportunity.

The 2nd defendant is entitled to a 37 per cent discount for his plea at the earliest opportunity.

I can only say such a lengthy sentence is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence, bearing in mind the quantities of drugs and their value.

For the 1st defendant, after that one-third discount is applied to the global starting point of 30 years and 6 months, the 1st defendant is sentenced as follows: for Charge 2, 20 years and 4 months’ imprisonment; Charge 3, 20 years and 4 months’ imprisonment; Charge 4, 20 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, all three sentences to be served concurrently, a total of 20 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

For the 2nd defendant, after that 37 per cent discount is applied to the global starting point of 31 years and 6 months, the 2nd defendant is sentenced as follows: for

Charge 3, 19 years and 10 months’ imprisonment; for Charge 5, 19 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, both sentences to be served concurrently, a total of 19 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.