COURT: Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to three charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug. Charge 1 alleges that on the 3rd day of April 2024 at No. 2 Kin Wing Lane, Tuen Mun, New Territories, in Hong Kong, you unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 5,000 grammes of a solid containing 3,940 grammes of cocaine.
The 2nd charge alleges that on the 3rd day of April 2024 in a private car with registration number ZE2054, No. 2 Kin Wing Lane, Tuen Mun, New Territories, in Hong Kong, you unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 5,010 grammes of a solid containing 3,920 grammes of cocaine.
The 3rd charge alleges that on the 3rd day of April 2024 at mini-storage No. 9060, Apple Storage, 9th Floor, Hung Wai Industrial Building, Nos. 20 to 26 Wang Yip Street West, Yuen Long, New Territories, in Hong Kong, you unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 2,999 grammes of a solid containing 2,405 grammes of cocaine.
The Facts
The facts admitted by you are these.
At about 11.35 am on 3 April 2024, police officers observed the defendant alight from a private car (“the Private Car”) at No. 2 Kin Wing Lane, Tuen Mun. He took an unsealed carton box from the rear passenger seat and walked towards Wellpoint Industrial Building (“WIB”). He was intercepted outside WIB. Upon search, five blocks containing 3,940 grammes of cocaine were found in the carton box. The defendant stated under caution that the boss asked him to collect 10 packets of ‘Coke’ from Lau Fau Shan and that these five packets were to be delivered to a mini-storage WPM186 at 13th Floor, WIB.
At about 11.53 am, a search of the Private Car recovered a black nylon bag in the middle row containing five blocks of cocaine weighing 3,920 grammes. An access card and the key to mini-storage No. 9060 were found in the driver’s seat storage compartment. The defendant stated under further caution that these five packets of cocaine were also collected from Lau Fau Shan and were to be delivered to mini-storage No. 9060 at 9th Floor Hung Wai Industrial Building (“HWIB”).
At about 12.44 pm, police then entered mini-storage No. 9060 using the access card and key found in the Private Car. Inside they found:
(a) three blocks containing 2,405 grammes of cocaine in a brown nylon bag;
(b) a carton box containing an electronic scale, a cutter, and empty transparent resealable plastic bags and;
(c) an empty blue rucksack.
The defendant stated under further caution that these three packets of cocaine were collected from Tsim Sha Tsui and delivered there the previous day on the boss’s instruction.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant stated under caution that he asked his friends for work. About a month before his arrest, an unknown male, “the boss”, asked him whether he would deal with dangerous drugs. He agreed and was told he would be responsible for delivering blocks of cocaine to storage for a reward of $3,000 per block. On 2 April 2024, he collected three blocks of cocaine from beside a rubbish bin in a shopping mall in Tsim Sha Tsui and delivered them to mini-storage No. 9060. On 3 April 2024, he acted upon instructions,
collected 10 blocks of cocaine from Hang Hau Tsuen, Lau Fau Shan and was arrested when delivering the first five blocks to WIB.
The defendant further stated that he himself rented both mini-storages for storing cocaine; that the electronic scale was for weighing cocaine, the cutter for cutting plastic bags, and he bought the resealable bags for packing cocaine; that the boss had not given him instructions on how to deal with the cocaine after it was stored, that he had never met the boss and he had not yet received any monetary reward, and that he had deleted the boss’s mobile number and all the call history from his mobile phone.
Records confirmed that the defendant rented mini-storage No. 9060 on 2 April 2024 at a monthly rent of $888. CCTV footage showed a male carrying a carton box, a brown nylon bag and a blue rucksack to the Apple Storage at 5.35 pm on 2 April 2024 and leaving empty-handed two minutes later.
In total, 13 blocks containing 10,265 grammes of cocaine were seized, with a combined estimated street value of approximately $9.8 million in powder form or $16.6 million in crack form. The defendant admits that he unlawfully possessed the dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
Background and Mitigation
The defendant is 33 years old. He is a Hong Kong resident. He was brought up in a broken home, his parents divorced when he was very young and he lived periodically between them. He has a girlfriend whom he regards as his ‘wife’ and they have a son of 9 years old. He committed the present offence because of financial difficulties.
The defendant has one previous conviction for a similar offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, which was more than 10 years prior to the present offence.
In mitigation, counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant should be classified as courier in Charges 1 and 2 and that whilst his role in Charge 3 may touch on the position of a storekeeper, he remains in the lowest rank of the hierarchy as he was at all times under the boss’s instruction and received no substantial gains.
Counsel submitted a notional starting point of 25 years and 7 months by linear interpolation within the relevant band as per Huang Ruifang guidelines. Counsel acknowledged that an electronic scale and cutters were found, but asked this court to exercise its discretion generously.
As to mitigating factors, counsel submitted that:
(a) the defendant entered an early plea of guilty;
(b) he cooperated with the police by revealing the place of storage in Charge 3, and;
(c) his personal and family circumstances deserve some understanding and sympathy.
Letters in mitigation from the defendant have been placed before and considered by this court.
Sentencing Considerations
With the Court of Appeal’s guideline in 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.
All three charges arise from the same drug trafficking operation involving the same type of drug. I therefore adopt a global approach using the aggregate quantity of 10,265 grammes of cocaine.
First step: identifying the relevant guideline band. The relevant guideline is set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234 at paragraph 62. The quantities of 3,940 grammes, 3,920 grammes, and 2,405 grammes fall within the same band, namely, 1,500 to 5,000 grammes, attracting a starting point range of 20 to 24 years.
By linear interpolation, the notional starting points concerning Charges 1 to 3 are respectively 273 months, 273 months, and 252 months. In respect of the total quantity of drugs involved, namely, 10,265 grammes, it falls within the band of 5,000 to 15,000 grammes, attracting a starting point range of 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment. By linear interpolation, the notional starting point is 25 years and 7 months, ie, 307 months.
Second step: the defendant’s role and culpability. The guidelines are set for the least culpable for drug traffickers, namely, the courier or storekeeper. Above all, I am not persuaded that the defendant was merely a courier in its purest sense. I do not agree with counsel that the defendant’s role in respect of Charges 1 and 2 shall be considered separately from that of Charge 3 for the simple reason that the defendant’s conduct concerning the three charges are continuous in nature.
The facts reveal that the defendant rented two separate mini-storages, specifically for storing cocaine. An electronic scale, a cutter, and resealable plastic bags for
packing cocaine were found in the mini-storage No. 9060, all of which the defendant admitted were his. He also deleted the boss’s mobile number and all call history from his phone.
Nonetheless, I accept that there is no direct evidence that the defendant was himself an actual or direct trafficker, as contemplated in Herry Jane Yusuph at paragraphs 61 to 64. The boss had not given him instructions on how to deal with the cocaine after it was stored. He had never met the boss. He had not yet received any monetary reward. His role did not extend to that of a manager or organiser.
In the circumstances, I do not consider the defendant’s sentence should deviate from the guidelines for couriers and storekeepers.
Third step: placement within the guideline band. Considering the overall role and culpability of the defendant, I find that the notional starting points I mentioned before remain appropriate.
Fourth step: aggravating factors. The electronic scale, cutter, and packing materials have already been taken into account in my assessment of the defendant’s role at Step two. As to the defendant’s previous conviction for a similar offence, I note that it predated the present offence by more than 10 years. Given the substantial passage of time, I do not consider it appropriate to enhance the sentence on this account.
Fifth step: mitigating factors. The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity for which he is entitled to full one-third discount. The sentences in respect of Charges 1 to 3 are respectively 182 months, 182 months and 168 months after discount. The overall notional sentence after this deduction is 204 months.
As for the personal and family circumstances of the defendant, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that they carry little weight in serious drug-trafficking cases. While I have sympathy for the defendant’s personal background and his young son, these matters cannot carry significant weight in a case involving over 10 kilogrammes of cocaine. I do not make any further reduction on this account.
Sixth step: totality and overall fairness. After the enhancement and deductions as stated, the sentence is 204 months’ imprisonment. I have stood back and considered the sentence as a whole. The totality principle is less directly engaged given that all three charges involve a single type of drug arising from the same operation.
The sentence is undoubtedly severe. However, having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the defendant’s role and culpability, I am satisfied that the sentence is fair, just and balanced to the offence as well as to the defendant.
Defendant, your sentence is as follows. On the 1st charge, 182 months’ imprisonment. On the 2nd charge, 182 months’ imprisonment. On the 3rd charge, 168 months’ imprisonment. The sentences of Charges 1 and 2 are to run concurrently. 22 months of Charge 3 be consecutive to the concurrent sentences of Charges 1 and 2.
You are therefore sentenced to a total of 204 months’ imprisonment, namely, 17 years of imprisonment.