HKSAR v. AU WING YUNG DEBBIE

HCCC 166/2025

[2025] HKCFI 3614

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 166 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charge

1.  On 8 May 2025, the defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The charge involved 10.53 grammes of a solid containing 8.74 grammes of ketamine, 102.6 grammes of a mixture containing 79.22 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 4.55 grammes of a solid containing 3.35 grammes of cocaine.  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 12 March 2025 and she was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed her guilty plea to the trafficking charge and her admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

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

3.  On 2 January 2024, police officers intercepted the defendant when she left Room 601, 6/F, No. 92 Hak Po Street, Mongkok, Kowloon (“the Room”).  The defendant had rented the Room for about two years.  Upon execution of a search warrant at the Room, a bag was found in the toilet.  The bag contained 97 plastic bags in which a total of 8.74 grammes of ketamine, 79.22 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 3.35 grammes of cocaine were found.

4.  The defendant was arrested at the scene and under verbal caution, she admitted, “Ah Sir, as I was indebted, I trafficked in dangerous drugs.  Please give me a chance.”  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant further admitted under caution that:-

(1)  As she had borrowed money from a money lender, she trafficked in dangerous drugs upon the referral by her friend called “Wai Kin”. “Wai Kin” promised her a reward of $8,000 for each delivery. This was the first time she trafficked in dangerous drugs for “Wai Kin”.

(2)  On 20 December 2023, someone arrived in a private car downstairs of where she lived and the driver passed her a bag containing the dangerous drugs which she kept in the toilet of the Room. She had not opened the bag and was waiting for instructions for delivery. She had not yet received any reward.

5.  The estimated prevailing street values of the dangerous drugs were as follows:-

(1)  ketamine: $5,813;

(2)  heroin hydrochloride: $76,642;

(3)  cocaine: $4,514 (powder), or $6,088 (crack).

6.  In the Summary of Facts, the defendant also admitted that she had unlawfully possessed the dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of trafficking.

Background and Mitigation

7.  The defendant was born in Hong Kong.  She was 29 years old at the time of the offence, and is now aged 31.  She received secondary education in Hong Kong up to Form 6.  She is single and is the only child of her parents.  Prior to her arrest, the defendant worked as a beautician earning around $15,000 per month, out of which she would give $4,500 to her mother as monthly contribution to the family.

8.  The defendant’s parents remain supportive to her despite her arrest for the offence.  They wrote a letter to the Court in mitigation for her, demonstrating their unfailing love and support and pleading for leniency.  The parents mentioned that they visited her every week during her remand and they could feel her genuine remorse for the offence and her aspirations for the future.

9.  Her counsel, Mr. James Wong, informed the Court that after her remand, the defendant found love and consolation in Christianity; she studied a course named “Foundation of faith in Christianity” whilst in custody and obtained a satisfactory result.  Mr. Wong told the Court that the defendant is deeply remorseful for the offence and is now committed to reforming herself.  She is determined to rehabilitate herself and lead a law-abiding life in the future.

10.  The defendant only has one previous conviction in 2019 and it was for the offence of conspiracy to steal, for which she received a term of imprisonment for 3 months.

11.  As the offence involved three types of dangerous drugs, Mr. Wong invited the Court to undertake a combined approach to sentencing in the present case.  He further invited the Court not to impose a significant enhancement of the sentence by virtue of the cocktail of drugs.  He accepted that given the seriousness of the trafficking offence, other than the guilty plea, the defendant can raise no strong mitigating factor. 

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 quantities of the dangerous drugs in question.  In the present case, there are three types of drugs being involved, namely ketamine, heroin hydrochloride and cocaine. 

14.  When more than one type of dangerous drugs are involved in a trafficking offence, the court will adopt a combined approach in sentencing.  As explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013, there are three means of cross-checking whether a sentence is manifestly inadequate, namely, the absurdity test, the ratio test and the conversion test. 

15.  In the present case, the absurdity test will result in an overall starting point of about 9 years and 1 month, whereas the ratio test will lead to a starting point of about 8 years and 10 months.  On the other hand, the conversion test will yield a starting point of about 9 years.  In the circumstances of this case, I am prepared to use the lowest overall starting point which is calculated by reference to the ratio test for sentencing in the present case, namely 8 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. 

16.  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 dangerous drugs were stored by the defendant at the Room which she had rented.

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

18.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  It is an aggravating factor for an accused to traffic in more than one type of dangerous drugs “because in such a situation the trafficker is able to cater to a far wider market than the trafficker in only one kind of drug.” (See HKSAR v Yim Hung Lui Ricky, CACC 266/2011, and HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644). I will enhance the starting point of 8 years and 10 months by 5 months, taking it to 9 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.  I shall disregard the defendant’s previous conviction as it was unrelated to dangerous drugs.

19.  The fifth step is to take into account the mitigating factors, if any.  As accepted by Mr. Wong, given the seriousness of the trafficking offence, the only mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is her guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, she is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the overall sentence down from 9 years and 3 months to 6 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. 

20.  Lastly, I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 6 years and 2 months.

Exhibits

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