HKSAR v. FANG JINGXIN

HCCC 130/2025

[2025] HKCFI 2695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 130 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug[1] before Magistrate Mr. Lam Tsz-hong, Kestrel and was committed, on 10^th April 2025, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. She confirmed her pleas and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and the convictions were duly recorded.

2.  Particulars of count 1 are that, the defendant on 1^st June, 2023, outside Room 419, 4^th Floor, Kar Wah Industrial Building (hereinafter as ‘the building’), Nos. 7-11 Hi Yip Street, Yuen Long, New Territories, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 993 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 993 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly referred to as ‘ice’).

3.  Particulars of count 2 are that she on the same day, at Room 419 of the building, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 57.53 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 57.53 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

FACTS

4.  At 1:31pm on 1^st June 2023, police officers spotted the defendant coming out of Room 419.  They followed her to a hardware shop where she entered and later on came out with a handsaw and a crowbar, and returned to Room 419.

5.  At 4:24pm, the defendant came out from Room 419 holding a handbag and a combination padlock.  Police officers went up to intercept her.  Upon search, a transparent plastic bag containing the dangerous drugs in count 1 was found from her handbag.  The defendant was arrested and claimed under caution that it was a ‘Michael’ who told her to bring the dangerous drugs outside, that there were more dangerous drugs in the storage, and that she could take the police inside[2].

6.  The defendant was then escorted back into Room 419.  Upon search, 1 opened tyre (hereinafter as “tyre A”)  was found next to the window.  Inside this tyre were 6 transparent plastic bags containing 5.97kg of part of the ‘ice’ particularized in count 2.  There was also a handsaw, crowbar and a pair of scissors, together with 7 unopened car tyres by the window side.  

7.  The defendant was arrested again and said under caution that the 8 tyres were the ones that the said Michael had told her to bring over from Tuen Mun, and he had told her to open the tyres and take out the dangerous drugs[3].

8.  All the tyres were removed from the room and transported to police headquarters.  The 7 unopened tyres were unwrapped and dangerous drugs were found inside each of them.  Each of 6 of the tyres had 7 packets of ‘ice’ inside, with the 7 packets weighing between 6.93 to 6.96 kg. One tyre had 10 packets inside, which contained 9.88kg of ‘ice’.  The total quantity of ‘ice’ found from all the tyres is 57.53kg, being the subject matter of count 2.

9.  The defendant’s home was searched on 2^nd June 2023 and nothing of significance was found.

10.  In the subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant claimed under caution that she had never met Michael in person, that she got his WhatsApp contact number through a friend in early May 2023, when Michael told her to collect some goods at an industrial building in Tuen Mun.  The defendant entered Hong Kong via Lok Ma Chau Control Point on 27^th May 2023, took the MTR to Mongkok and stayed at a flat on Fa Yuen Street.  

11.  While the defendant was in Hong Kong, Michael instructed her to rent Room 419, which she did on 30^th May, through a property agent near the building.  The defendant asked a friend to sign the rental agreement on her behalf since she only held a two-way permit and not a Hong Kong Identity Card.  The defendant successfully rented Room 419 for a period of two years at a monthly rental of $10,000.  She paid the property agent $40,000 in cash, which was handed to the defendant by an old man earlier on, and the money was supposedly from Michael.  

12.  The defendant was promised a reward of $5,000 for delivering the dangerous drugs to the building but she had yet to be paid.  

13.  Michael contacted the defendant on 31^st May 2023 via a WhatsApp voice call, instructing her to collect some goods from Mei Kei Industrial Building (hereinafter as “Mei Kei”)  in Tuen Mun and deliver them to the building.  

14.  The defendant arrived at Mei Kei around 11am on 1^st June 2023 and saw a pallet of tyres.  She called Michael and he confirmed they were the goods to be collected. The defendant then ordered a truck via the app GoGoVan and transported the 8 tyres together with the wooden pallet to Room 419.

15.  Michael called and instructed the defendant to cut open the tyres for him to see but the defendant was unable to do so without the right tools, so she went out to buy the scissors, handsaw and crowbar that were later found in Room 419.  The defendant managed to open one of the tyres (tyre A)  in the room and saw the 7 packets inside.  She knew that they were dangerous drugs.  

16.  At around 4pm, Michael told the defendant to take out a packet and put it in her handbag and go outside.  The defendant was not told where to go, just that Michael will contact her later.  The defendant was arrested when she left Room 419 with the drugs in her handbag.  

17.  An examination of the defendant’s mobile phone showed Michael’s number as 5712 3690.  There was a video of the defendant failing to open one of the tyres, which was sent to Michael.  She also took a photo of the pallet of tyres outside Mei Kei and sent to Michael at 11am on the charge date.  

18.  The estimated retail value of the ‘ice’ found in the defendant’s handbag and in Room 419 is, respectively, $495,507 and $28,707,470.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

19.  The defendant is of previously clear record in Hong Kong.  

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

20.  The defendant was born in mainland China in June 2000 and has just turned 25.  She is holder of a two-way travel permit.  She claims to have completed high school education in the mainland.  She was unemployed when she came to Hong Kong on 27^th May 2023.  She claimed to have come here to help take care of her younger siblings while her ailing mother sought medical treatment.

21.  Mr. David C.W. Cheung, counsel for the defendant, submitted that the defendant has entered timely pleas, made frank admissions and has all along been cooperative.  The defendant occupied a very low position in the trafficking operation as a mere courier.  She was promised $5,000 but never received any money except for the $40,000 passed to her for paying the rental and deposit.  

22.  During her present remand, the defendant was awarded certificates for ‘Simple Home Exercises’, and ‘English Grammar for Beginners’ for completing the two courses run by the School of Continuing and Professional Studies of the Chinese University.

23.  The defendant wrote in mitigation, expressing her deep regret.  She wrote about how her parents got divorced when she was 10 years old, leaving her and her siblings in the care of their grandmother, who was in poor health.  The defendant ended up having to look after her grandmother and her siblings.  She had to give up going to university after completing high school because of her poor family background and her role as the caretaker of everyone.

24.  Things looked to be taking a better turn when her mother was able to look after the siblings and grandmother, and the defendant was admitted to a college in Guangzhou.  Unfortunately, before she could enroll, her mother was diagnosed with heart problems and so she had to give up her studies and came to Hong Kong to take care of her mother and her family from 2021 to 2023 during the pandemic.  

25.  As a two-way permit holder, the defendant was not allowed to work in Hong Kong.  Her mother relied on CSSA and the defendant did not want to be a burden to her.  The defendant was able to find online part-time jobs as a source of income.  

26.  In May 2023, her mother needed to receive medical treatment in the mainland, and so the defendant was told to come to Hong Kong to help look after her younger brother. It was on this occasion when she went online and found a part-time employment agency that she came to be involved with ‘Michael’, leading to her present predicament.

27.  The defendant feels guilty for letting her mother and grandmother down, for disappointing her siblings.  She feels ashamed, but also somewhat grateful that such a large quantity of dangerous drugs was intercepted by the police and prevented from flowing into the community.  She had actively cooperated with police investigation, hoping to provide more information to assist the authorities.  

28.  The defendant says she will continue to enrich herself.  She is eager to return to her family and to look after her mother and grandmother.  She wishes to be able to give back to society in future.

29.  The defendant’s mother also wrote in mitigation, telling the court how her daughter has always been well behaved and sensible since she was a child, and that she will try her best as a single mother to guide her back onto the right path, and seek leniency from the court so that they can be re-united as soon as possible.  

SENTENCING

30.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for trafficking in dangerous drugs is life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.  

31.  Although the drugs were found at two locations, which led to the prosecution laying two charges, given the fact that the defendant’s possession of the drugs inside her handbag and the drugs in Room 419 are directly connected, the defendant will be sentenced as if she was in possession of all the drugs on the same occasion, and the overall starting point will be decided based on the combined quantity of drugs found[4].

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

32.  The guidelines and 6-step approach set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[5], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[6] are applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff bands

33.  The sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234 for ‘ice’ are applied.  For quantity of over 30kg:

“…sentences will fall within the discretion of judges bearing in mind the practical and realistic ceiling of 35 years’ imprisonment, as established in Sum Ka Wa, and the legislative maximum of life imprisonment for cases of truly exceptional gravity.[7]”

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

34.  In the case of HKSAR v Chu Ho Wa [2022] 1 HKLRD 359; CACC 331/2017, Applicant 1 and 2 (referred to as “D1” and “D2” in the judgment)  picked up a carton and a suitcase of dangerous drugs from a speed boat near a kiosk on a beach in the Repulse Bay area, loaded them into their light goods vehicle and drove away.  They, together with two other defendants (D3 and D4 at trial)  who were in another vehicle that had met up with the light goods vehicle, were intercepted by officers of the Narcotics Bureau in the Yau Ma Tei area and were all arrested.  The drugs in question there were 34,232 grammes of ‘ice’, with a then estimated value of more than $10 million.  

35.  The Court of Appeal found that the evidence suggested that D4 was the organizer of the drug trafficking operation, which had an international element, and that,

“…23. By contrast, D1 and D2 were effectively transportation workers, hired to collect the drugs from Repulse Bay and drive them to Yau Ma Tei in Kowloon. In their case, the judge specifically found that ‘neither … actually knew where the drugs were coming from when they agreed to take part’. They were more carriers than couriers, with no other connection to the drugs than conveying them from one place to another for a fee. In our view, their roles placed them at, or even below, the lower end of the ‘courier or storekeeper’ bracket as identified in Herry Jane Yusuph.”

36.  The Court found that given the limited role and culpability of D1 and D2, they would have assessed the starting point of D1 at 30 years 6 months’ imprisonment; and that of D2 at 31 years, because he was more involved with the trafficking and was the person who recruited D1.

37.  In the present case, the defendant did more than merely collecting and transporting the drugs. Her role extended to renting the room and purchasing the tools necessary to open up the tyres to get to the drugs so that she can then deliver them.  I find that her culpability is slightly higher than that of D1 and on par with that of D2 in Chu Ho Wa.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

38.  Just as in Chu Ho Wa, the guideline bracket for the quantity of drugs being trafficked is over 30 years’ imprisonment at the sentencer’s discretion.  

39.  In HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777; CACC 144/2023, the Court of Appeal stated that,

“26… realistically and for all practical purposes, there is a prevailing sentencing limit for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, which is 35 years’ imprisonment after trial.”

40.  Taking into consideration the sentences in Chu Ho Wa and the role and culpability of the defendant here, I find that an appropriate starting point is that of 31 years’ imprisonment.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

41.  It is not clear from the Summary of Facts whether the defendant had come to Hong Kong specifically to commit the offences, which is an aggravating factor.

42.  There is evidence to suggest that she had come here at the request of her mother to look after her siblings and then decided to engage in the trafficking activities while here.

43.  Given that there are available two reasonable inferences, the defendant is granted the benefit of the doubt and is to be sentenced on the factual basis that is more favourable to her.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

44.  Despite my sympathy for the defendant’s personal circumstances, it is trite law that, in cases as serious as the present one, they pale into insignificance as mitigating factors.

45.  I am, however, prepared to grant the defendant a 6 month reduction in sentence on the basis of her cooperation with police investigation throughout, as well as her diligence while in remand, resulting in the award of the certificates mentioned above.  The notional starting point is thus lowered to 30 years 6 months’ imprisonment.

46.  The defendant is granted the full one-third discount for her timely pleas and the combined sentence for trafficking in all the drugs in the two counts should be 20 years 4 months’ imprisonment.  

Step 6: Totality

47.  Taking a step back, I am of the view that given the seriousness of the case, in particular the quantity of drugs involved, this is a fair, just and balanced sentence.  

FINAL SENTENCE

48.  To achieve the said sentence, in relation to count 1, I sentence the defendant to 12 years’ imprisonment after plea; in relation to count 2, to 20 years 4 months’ imprisonment after plea, and I order the two sentences to run wholly concurrently.

49.  The global sentence for the two counts after plea is, therefore, 20 years 4 months’ imprisonment.