The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
On 21 July 2022, when police officers approached the defendant when he was leaving a house at Yuen Long, the defendant threw the bag he was carrying and started to run. Officers nearby drove a car to assist in the interception. As the defendant was running in the dark towards the car, he was knocked down. The defendant got up immediately and continued to flee. Eventually, he was subdued despite putting up a fierce struggle. The bag which the defendant discarded earlier contained dangerous drugs. This is the subject matter of Charge 1.
The officers then searched the house from which the defendant came out. Further drugs which are the subject matters of Charge 2 were found. Drug related paraphernalia were also found.
The defendant was arrested. Under caution, he said he was using the apparatus found in his house for trafficking purpose.
I was told that the defendant is now 33 years of age. He attended education up to Form 5. He had worked as a cosmetic sales representative and at the time of arrest he was unemployed.
In mitigation, learned counsel for the defence, Mr Victor Ho, stressed that the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. Mr Ho informed the court that the defendant had a miserable childhood. His father deserted the family when the defendant was young. His mother passed away when he was four years old. He was raised by his grandmother until he was eight, then he was sent Po Leung Kuk until he became an adult.
Mr Ho told the court that the defendant committed the drug offence under bad peer influence and the temptation to earn quick money. He resisted the officers out of extreme fear in the circumstances and now wishes to express his apology to the officers.
The defence produced a letter written by the defendant in which he expressed remorse and determination to be a law-abiding citizen after serving the sentence. During remand, he has been attending classes and religion sessions.
The defence also produced letters written by family members of the defendant, his teacher, supervisors in his previous employment and a worker in a Christian body. All of them said the defendant is a person of good nature and pleaded leniency on his behalf. All family members and those who have written letters for the defendant are present in court to show their support.
Charge 1 involved 489.9 grammes of a solid containing 442.1 grammes of cocaine. Charge 2 involved various drugs as follows: 63.98 grammes of a solid containing 52.23 grammes of cocaine; 269 grammes of a solid containing 170.5 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride; 123 grammes of a mixture containing 103 grammes of heroin hydrochloride; and 20.3 grammes of a solid containing 17.4 grammes of ketamine.
As far as cocaine and heroin are concerned, having regard to the observation of the Court of Final Appeal in Seabrook v HKSAR [1999] 2 HKCFAR 184, I am of the view that the tariff set out in the recent case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 should be applied. As far as ketamine is concerned, the tariff being SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 is applicable. In all the circumstances of the case, I see no reason to depart from the tariffs.
Mr Ho realistically accepts that the role of the defendant was more than a courier. In the light of the quantity of the drug in his possession, there must be a substantial degree of trust on the defendant from those who engaged him. That said, I accept the submission of Mr Ho that the defendant was not the mastermind nor organiser of this illegal exercise.
Charge 1 involved cocaine only. The quantity of the narcotic was 442.1 grammes. Applying the tariff in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3), a sentence of 15 to 18 years’ imprisonment should be considered. In the light of the whole of the relevant circumstances, including my judgment on the role of the defendant, I adopt 15 years and 2 months as the notional sentence after trial.
As regards Charge 2, as various types of drug were involved in the case, in consideration I follow the approach as stated by the Court of Appeal in cases such as HKSAR v Islam S M Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146.
Amongst the drugs, cocaine and heroin obviously are more prominent both in terms of its potency and quantity. Both types of drug attract the same tariff and the new tariff that is set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3). For these two drugs, the total quantity of narcotics was 325.73 grammes. Applying the said tariff, taking into account the quantity alone, a notional sentence after trial of 13 years and 8 months is appropriate.
Apart from the cocaine and heroin there were some 17 grammes of ketamine. Applying SJ v Hii Siew Cheng, taking the quantity alone into account, a notional sentence after trial of slightly over 4 years and 3 months is appropriate. As three types of drugs were involved in Charge 2, in deciding the notional sentence after trial, I adopt the combined approach and check whether the notional sentence to adopt is fair and appropriate by testing it against the absurdity test, the conversion test, and the ratio test.
In addition, I have to take into account that trafficking in different types of drugs presented two possible aggravating features of a wider market and the effect on users of combination of dangerous drugs. In consideration, I bear in mind that the quantity of cocaine and heroin was substantial and the quantity of ketamine, though not minimal, was relatively small.
Having assessed the impact of these aggravating features, in the circumstances of the present case I am of the view that the sentence should be enhanced by about 3 months for this factor. I do not see there is any further matter which amounts to an aggravating feature.
The defendant was storing a substantial quantity of dangerous drugs. As said, I found there must be a high degree of trust on him by those engaging him. At the same time, I note that the drugs were stored at the home of the defendant, not at premises for the purpose of storing drugs. In all the circumstances, for Charge 2 I adopt 14 years as the notional sentence after trial.
For Charge 3, despite Mr Ho stressed that there is no evidence that any police officer suffered injuries and on the other hand the defendant did suffer some injuries, in my judgment only a notional sentence after trial of 6 months is sufficient to reflect the culpability in the circumstances.
The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate and for this he is entitled to a one-third discount for each charge in the circumstances. Having considered the whole of the circumstances, including that this was the first time the defendant had committed any offence and what Mr Ho said on the defendant’s behalf, in my judgment this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to.
The defendant is being sentenced for three charges. Having regard to the observation of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75, I accept the submission of Mr Ho that in the circumstances of the present case the aggregate sentence for the two drug charges should be considered having regard to the total quantity of the drug seized.
Having considered the whole of the circumstances and the totality principle, applying the sentencing principle as stated earlier, in my view 17 years and 3 months is the appropriate overall nominal sentence after trial for the two drug charges.
As regards Charge 3, having regard to cases such as HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching, CACC 107/2011, I am of the view that the resistance of the defendant in the circumstances amounted to additional culpability and therefore a consecutive sentence subject to totality principle is called for. In my judgment, the overall sentence should be increased by 2 months for this charge.
To give effect to the above considerations and for ease of calculation, I will order part of the sentence on Charge 2 to run consecutively to that of Charge 1, with the sentence for Charge 3 to run wholly concurrently to the other sentences. In my judgment, the individual sentences and the overall sentence to be imposed is a fair, just, and balanced one in all the circumstances of the case of the defendant.
For the reasons I have said, I impose the following sentences on you: for Charge 1, an immediate imprisonment term of 10 years and 1 month; Charge 2, an immediate imprisonment term of 9 years and 4 months; Charge 3, an immediate imprisonment term of 4 months. Further, I order 1 year and 7 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 to run consecutively to the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and the sentence on Charge 3 to run wholly concurrently with the sentences for the other two charges.
As a result, you are to serve a total sentence of 11 years and 8 months for the three charges.