HKSAR v. SIU TAK WING

HCCC 429/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 429 OF 2025

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.  The Defendant, SIU Tak-wing (“D”), pleaded guilty on 11 December 2025 before a Magistrate to two charges and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.  This morning before me, he confirmed his pleas and the admission of the facts.  In sentencing, I have considered the admitted Summary of Facts, the mitigation submissions filed on his behalf by his counsel, the antecedents of the Defendant, the authorities submitted by both parties, and the sentencing calculations provided by the Prosecution.  In determining the appropriate sentence, I adopt the structured six-step approach set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as modified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, and the recent guidance in HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885 (CACC 208/2024).

THE CHARGES

2.  D faced two charges:

· Charge 1: Trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, involving 26.84 grammes of cocaine and 47.13 grammes of ketamine; and

· Charge 2: Driving a motor vehicle with any concentration of specified illicit drugs present in his blood or urine, contrary to section 39K(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374, involving cocaine, Benzoylecgonine and Ecgonine methyl ester.

FACTS

3.  On 7 April 2024, at about 1:13 am, police officers intercepted a private car with registration mark YV 4832. The driver was driving in a high speed in and unsteady manner at Fuk To Street near the junction of Kwun Tong Road, Ngau Tau Kok, Kowloon. The police found D was the driver of the vehicle and he appeared dull and kept looking at the police officer during investigation. D was thus suspected to be in possession of drugs and was also under influence of drugs.

4.  Upon searching the vehicle, officers found and seized:

(i) A plastic bag containing 20 plastic bags with a total of 5.30 grammes of a solid containing 4.35 grammes of cocaine;

(ii) A plastic bag containing 20 plastic bags with a total of 5.31 grammes of a solid containing 4.37 grammes of cocaine;

(iii) A black plastic bag containing 4 resealable plastic bags containing various plastic bags containing a total of 17.45 grammes of a solid containing a total of 14.28 grammes of cocaine and 22.6 grammes of a solid containing a total of 19.0 grammes of ketamine; and

(iv) A black plastic bag containing 2 resealable plastic bags containing various plastic bags containing a total of 20.59 grammes of a solid containing a total of 17.23 grammes of ketamine.

(v) 2 plastic bags containing a total of 0.51 grammes of a solid containing 0.43 grammes of cocaine.

(vi) 1 resealable plastic bags containing 24 plastic bags containing a total of 12.9 grammes of a sold containing 10.9 grammes of ketamine.

(vii) 1 resealable plastic bag containing 15 plastic bags containing a total of 4.07 grammes of a solid containing 3.41 grammes of cocaine.

5.  In total, the drugs seized from the vehicle were 26.84 grammes of cocaine and 47.13 grammes of ketamine.

6.  Cash in the sums of HK$13,423.5,HK$2,925.6 and RMB 420, and a mobile phone were also found and seized upon search on the person of D.

7.  A breath test conducted on D detected no alcohol.

8.  At about 5:45 am, a blood specimen was taken from D.  Subsequent analysis certified that cocaine, Benzoylecgonine, and Ecgonine methylester were present in his blood.

9.  D was arrested and cautioned but he did not say anything.

10.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, D stated that the car did not belong to him which he had rented from another party.

THE ANTECEDENTS OF THE DEFENDANT

11.  D is a male, aged 37 (born in the Chinese Mainland in September 1988).  He has a criminal record in Hong Kong (Trafficking in DD).  In 2018, he was sentenced to a total of 9 years and 5 months for two trafficking offences in High Court.  His last discharge from prison was 29 April 2023, less than a year before the present offence.

12.  D has a history of traffic offences, including:

· Speeding (7 October 2016, fined $900);

· Speeding (23 February 2024, fined $900);

· Failing to comply with traffic signals (4 October 2023, fined $600);

· Using a mobile phone while driving (10 September 2023, fined $450); and

· Failing to comply with traffic signs (7 October 2023, fined $450).

13.  D has completed Form 5 education.  He was a renovation worker at the time of arrest.  He is single with no fixed abode.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

14.  I have carefully considered the mitigation submissions filed on behalf of D by his counsel, Mr. Gibson Shaw.

15.  D is described as a hard-working and diligent individual who previously worked as a renovation worker.

16.  Mr. Shaw told me that D faced financial difficulties.  He was forced to contend with a shortage of work, which led to an unstable income.  He was only able to take on casual work, and his monthly earnings fell sharply.  In order to meet his daily expenses, he committed the present offences, introduced by unsavoury associates, so as to earn a small amount of money.

17.  D has a previous criminal conviction for a similar offence.  He committed the present offence less than a year after his release.  Mr. Shaw recognises that this is an aggravating factor but nevertheless implores the court to impose the most lenient sentence possible.

18.  I was told that D understands the seriousness of this incident and is willing to take responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty.  He is fully aware that facing up to and acknowledging his mistakes is the right attitude to adopt if he is to turn over a new leaf.  He deeply regrets his foolish decision to take a shortcut to “make a quick buck”.

19.  Following this incident, D was arrested by the police in April 2024 and has now been in custody for over two years.  During this time, he has reflected on his actions and is deeply aware of his wrongdoing.

20.  D feels a sense of guilt towards his mother (aged 65, cleaner).  He is ashamed that not only has he failed to repay her kindness, but has also caused her worry.  He is determined to turn over a new leaf and start afresh.

21.  Mr. Shaw submitted that the circumstances of Charge 2 are not among the most serious of their kind, as D’s driving did not result in a road traffic accident, property damage, or personal injury, nor do the facts indicate he was incapable of properly controlling the vehicle.

MITIGATING FACTORS ADVANCED

22.  I have taken all of these matters into account.  The early plea is the most significant mitigating factor.  D’s remorse, as demonstrated by his frank admissions are also factors I have considered.  However, these must be weighed against the very serious nature of the offences, the substantial quantity of drugs involved, and D’s previous similar criminal record.

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHARGE 1: TRAFFICKING IN DANGEROUS DRUGS

23.  Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence.  The maximum sentence is life imprisonment and a fine of 5 million dollars.  The Court of Appeal has established the six-step sentencing approach in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.  I shall apply that approach.

Step 1: Identify the Relevant Guideline Band

24.  The total quantity of drugs seized is:

· 26.84 grammes of cocaine; and

· 47.13 grammes of ketamine.

25.  For cocaine, the applicable guideline is HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138. The tariffs are as follows:

Quantity	Sentencing Range (after trial)
Up to 10g	2 - 5 years
10 – 50g	5 - 8 years
50 – 200g	8 - 12 years
200 – 500g	12 - 16 years
500 – 1,500g	16 - 20 years
1,500 – 5,000g	20 - 24 years
5,000 – 15,000g	24 - 27 years
15,000 – 30,000g	27 - 30 years
Above 30,000g	Discretionary

26.  The quantity of 26.84g of cocaine falls within the 10g to 50g band, which carries a starting point range of 5 to 8 years (60 to 96 months).

27.  For ketamine, the applicable guideline is Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1.  The tariffs are as follows:

Quantity	Sentencing range (after trial)
1g – 10g	2 – 4 years
10g – 50g	4 – 6 years
50g – 300g	6 – 9 years
300g – 600g	9 – 12 years
600g – 1,000g	12 – 14 years
Over 1,000g	14 years upward

28.  The quantity of 47.13g of ketamine falls within the 10g to 50g band, which carries a starting point range of 4 to 6 years (48 to 72 months).

Step 2: Assess the Defendant’s Role and Culpability

29.  By pleading guilty to Charge 1, D now admits that the drugs were for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.  He was the driver of the vehicle in which the drugs were concealed.  The drugs were found in the vehicle under his control.  The presence of cash and a mobile phone, as well as the packaging of the drugs (multiple resealable plastic bags containing cocaine and ketamine), strongly indicates D was involved in the preparation and dissemination of the drugs akin to an actual drug trafficker.

30.  His role is more active and integral than a mere courier or custodian.  His culpability is accordingly higher.

Step 3: Identify the Starting Point within the Band

31.  The drugs involved are a cocktail of cocaine and ketamine.  In determining the appropriate starting point for such a cocktail of drugs, I have adopted the combined approach in determining the base starting point, subject to employing the ratio test as a cross-check, as approved by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885 (CACC 208/2024).  The Prosecution has helpfully provided the following calculation which is also adopted by the Defence in its mitigation.  

Dangerousdrug	Sentence assuming 73.97g of single drug	Ratio	Sentence
Cocaine	103.6704 months	26.84g/73.97g   = 36.28%	37.62 months
Ketamine	75.45168 months	47.13g/73.97g   = 63.72%	48.08 months
Total     85.7 months

32.  Given the role and culpability in the offence of D, who was no mere courier or storekeeper, I considered an increase of approximately 10 months and an overall starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment (96 months) is appropriate.  I am satisfied that this is a fair starting point before considering aggravating and mitigating factors.

Step 4: Aggravating Factors for Enhancement

33.  I now consider aggravating factors personal to D that justify enhancing the starting point.

34.  Trafficking in a cocktail of drugs: As held in HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644, trafficking in a cocktail of drugs is an aggravating factor as it caters to a wider market.  An increase of 3 months is appropriate.  

35.  Previous conviction for a similar offence: D has a Trafficking in DD record in Hong Kong. He committed the present offence less than a year after his last discharge from custody on 29 April 2023.  His previous conviction for a similar offence is a significant aggravating factor.  An increase of 9 months is appropriate.

36.  The notional sentence after trial is therefore:

· 96 months (starting point) + 12 months (cocktail of drugs (3 months) and similar drug record (9 months)) = 108 months (9 years’ imprisonment).

Step 5: Mitigating Factors for Discount

37.  I now consider all mitigating factors to determine the overall discount from the notional sentence after trial:

(i) Guilty Plea — D pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. This demonstrates remorse and saved police and court resources. This has significant utilitarian value and is the most substantial mitigating factor. He is entitled to a full one-third discount.

(ii) Personal Mitigation — D’s difficult background (financial hardship, unstable income, family responsibilities) is considered. However, personal and family circumstances generally count for little in serious drug trafficking cases, the Court of Appeal has recognised that only exceptional personal mitigation may warrant some recognition.

38.  Applying the one-third discount to the notional sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment:

· 9 years × 2/3 = 6 years.

39.  The sentence for Charge 1 after mitigation is therefore 6 years’ imprisonment.

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHARGE 2: DRUG DRIVING

40.  I now turn to Charge 2.  D drove a motor vehicle while cocaine, Benzoylecgonine, and Ecgonine methyl ester were present in his blood.

41.  The Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Chan Hon Hoi [2011] 1 HKLRD 808 emphasised that driving under the influence of drugs creates a manifest danger on the roads and deterrent penalties are necessary.  Driving is a highly complex skill determined by changes in physical, emotional and mental conditions, all of which can be impaired by the use of drugs.

42.  Fortunately, as submitted by Mr. Shaw, D’s driving did not result in a road traffic accident, property damage, or personal injury.  

43.  D has a history of traffic offences, including speeding and failing to comply with traffic signals, which is an aggravating factor.  However, those are relatively minor traffic convictions, given the absence of accident or injury, I consider that a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for this charge which will also be reduced by one-third to 8 months’ imprisonment on account of D’s plea.

44.  Under section 39K(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374), on conviction on indictment, D is liable to a fine at level 4 and to imprisonment for 3 years. Under section 39K(3), D must be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of not less than 2 years unless special reasons exist (see section 39K(2)).  No special reasons have been advanced by Mr. Shaw.

45.  As to the proper period of disqualification, the sentencing principles that underly disqualification orders are well established.  The following summary of them is taken from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Hung Ling Kwok [2010] 4 HKLRD 365:

(i) The main purpose of disqualification is ‘forward looking and preventative rather than backward looking and punitive’. It is designed to protect road users in the future from an offender who had shown himself to be a real risk on the roads.

(ii) The risk represented by the offender is reflected in the level of culpability which attaches to his driving, so that matters relevant to fixing the length of the driving disqualification are more or less the same as those factors relevant to determining the term of imprisonment.

(iii) Where the term of the imprisonment and the period of disqualification are to run concurrently (as will always be the case for first offenders), then the period of disqualification must be longer than the prison term for it to have any real significance or meaningful effect.

(iv) Where a prison term is imposed it is the length of the actual sentence to which regard must be had when determining the appropriate length of the disqualification order. The court should not try to anticipate the earliest release date of the defendant should he be granted remission of sentence due to his good conduct in prison. It is the relationship between the term of imprisonment and the period of disqualification that is relevant.

46.  Considering the imprisonment term imposed is to be over 6 years, I therefore impose an order disqualifying D from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of 8 years and 6 months from the date of this order, in order to give effect that the disqualification period in Charge 2 should be 2 years.  Under section 72A(3B) of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374), D is further ordered to attend and complete a driving improvement course at his own expense within the last 3 months of his disqualification period.

Step 6: Apply the Totality Principle and Finalise Sentence

47.  I must stand back and ensure the total sentence is fair, just, and proportionate to D’s overall criminality (Herry Jane Yusuph at §79).

48.  The sentence for Charge 1 is 6 years’ imprisonment.  The sentence for Charge 2 is 8 months’ imprisonment.

49.  While the charges arise from the same incident, they are offences of a different nature: one is drug trafficking, the other is endangering public safety on the roads.  To reflect the separate criminality and the need for deterrence, bearing in mind the totality principle, I order that 6 months of the sentence for Charge 2 run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1, and the remaining 2 months run concurrently.

50.  The total sentence is therefore:

· 6 years (Charge 1) + 6 months (part of Charge 2) = 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

51.  I am satisfied that this sentence reflects the gravity of trafficking a significant quantity of a cocktail of drugs (over 73 grammes narcotic weight) and driving under the influence of drugs.  It is adequately deterrent and punitive.  The sentence is not crushing nor disproportionate.

CONCLUSION

52.  Accordingly, D is sentenced as follows:

Charge	Offence	Sentence
Charge 1	Trafficking in dangerous drugs (26.84g cocaine + 47.13g ketamine)	6 years’ imprisonment
Charge 2	Drug driving	8 months’ imprisonment (6 months consecutive)

53.  Total sentence: 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

54.  D is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 102 months (8 years and 6 months) from today, and is ordered to attend and complete a driving improvement course at his own expense within the last 3 months of his disqualification period.