HKSAR v. LUI MAN KIT

HCCC 212/2024

[2025] HKCFI 5089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 212 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug before Magistrate Ms. Vivian Ho and was committed, on 2 July 2024, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. He confirmed his plea of guilty and admission to the summary of facts before me and his conviction was duly recorded.

2.  Particulars of the offence are that the defendant on 30 May 2023, at Room 4211, Kwai Sun House, Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate, No.120 Ngau Tau Kok Road, Kowloon, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 2 kilogrammes of a solid containing 1,433g of cocaine.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

3.  The defendant was intercepted by police officers conducting an anti-narcotics operation at the lift lobby of Kwai Sun House at around 12:12pm on 30 May 2023, and was escorted back to Room 4211.

4.  A ‘red-white-blue’ bag was found in the bedroom.  Inside the bag were 2 packets, each with a 1kg solid block.  They were later found to contain all the particularized dangerous drugs.  

5.  The defendant was arrested.  He claimed under caution that he was helping others to store and deliver the cocaine.  3 mobile phones and 5 keys were found on the defendant.  

6.  In the subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant claimed that he had made the acquaintance of a man known as “Chu Chai” in late February 2023 at a bar in Tsim Sha Tsui.  Chu Chai called the defendant in early May 2023 and asked to borrow the defendant’s flat to store some drugs, offering him $3,700 per block of drugs stored as remuneration.

7.  The defendant agreed to the arrangement.  He took a taxi to To Ka Wan, met up with a male who passed him the ‘red-white-blue’ bag, and took the bag to his flat, as instructed.  The defendant did open the bag to have a look and saw the two blocks of drugs inside.  

8.  The initial arrangement was for him to keep the drugs for a week, but he was later told that the drugs were not ready for delivery yet.  He never received the promised remuneration.

9.  The average retail price for cocaine powder in May 2023 was HK$1,105 per gramme, whereas that for crack cocaine was HK$1,623 per gramme.  The seized drugs could, therefore, have been sold at street level for $2,210,000 or $3,246,000 depending on their form.

10.  By his admission to the summary of facts, the defendant had accepted that he was in possession of the seized drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking at the material time.  

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

11.  The defendant is of previously clear record.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

12.  The defendant was born in May 1999 and is 26.  He was educated up to Form 6 level and used to work as a part-time waiter. His father had passed away when he was 5.  Before his arrest in this case, the defendant was living with his mother.

13.  In his written submissions, Mr. Cheung informed the court that the defendant was unemployed when he was asked to commit the offence, and he foolishly agreed, thinking to earn some quick money to support his mother and himself.

14.  The defendant had been attending church gatherings while in remand.  According to the letter written by Mr. Chan Chin Hong of The Hong Kong Christian Kun Sun Association Limited, the defendant had completed and obtained a pass in 8 units of Bible Studies.  Mr. Chan witnessed positive changes in the defendant, and can see from his exercises and letters his genuine remorse.  Mr. Chan believes the defendant realizes how his action had hurt the society and his relatives, and is willing to shoulder the consequences, to become a better person.

15.  The case was adjourned pending investigations by the police into matters raised by the defendant in mitigation. By a letter dated 25 September 2025, the Police confirmed their conclusion that the information provided by the defendant is of limited assistance.

16.  Nevertheless, Mr. Cheung relies on the case of HKSAR v Lo Sze Tung Stephanie [2018] HKCA 42; CACC 190/2017 to urge the court to grant the defendant a discount based on his genuine attempts to assist the authorities.

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS

17.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for the offence is that of life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

18.  The guidelines and 6-step approach as set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[1]are applied as follows.

19.  It is not disputed by the prosecution that the sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234 for trafficking in cocaine should be applied.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff bands

20.  For 1,433g of cocaine, the updated applicable guideline tariff band is that of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

21.  Based on the summary of facts on which the conviction is founded, the defendant’s role was a courier and storekeeper of the drugs.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

22.  An arithmetical approach towards the guidelines leads to a notional starting point of 19 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  This is the starting point I adopt.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

23.  Based on the summary of facts, there is no evidence that there are any aggravating factors in the defendant’s commission of the offence.  

Step 5: Mitigating factors

24.  I have noted that this is the defendant’s first conviction, but it is trite law that in an offence as serious as the present one, the defendant’s previously clear record becomes irrelevant in terms of sentencing.  Furthermore, any credit due to the defendant on this basis is already subsumed by credit given to his guilty plea[2].

25.  Although the information provided by the defendant was of limited assistance, it is clear that the defendant did make genuine attempts to assist the police.  It is important that the court should recognize that so as to encourage future defendants to continue to endeavour to bring those who exploit others to traffic in drugs to justice.  The defendant will be granted a discount on this basis.  

26.  I also note the defendant’s positive good character before he committed the offence, including his active volunteering work, and have taken that into consideration when deciding on the level of discount to be granted.

27.  The remaining mitigating factor is the defendant’s timely guilty plea.

28.  Based on the above factors and considerations, the defendant is sentenced to 11 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.  This sentence represents an overall discount of slightly less than 40%.

Step 6: Totality

29.  Taking a step back, I find this sentence fair, just and balanced in the circumstances.