HKSAR v. CHEUNG KA YEE

HCCC 272/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 272 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 15 August 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, he confirmed his plea and his admission to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The Particulars of Offence state that on or about the 27th day of March 2024, at Flat 328, 3rd Floor, Yip Shing 6, No. 7 Yip Shing Street, Kwai Chung, New Territories in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 101.58 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 92.11 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 3.72 grammes of a mixture containing 2.95 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.  

3.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows.  In the afternoon on 26 March 2024, plainclothes police officers were conducting anti-narcotics operation and laid ambush in the vicinity of Yip Shing 6 (“the Building”) at No. 7 Yip Shing Street, Kwai Chung, New Territories.  At around 8.25 pm, the police saw a female (“A”) left Flat 328 on the 3rd Floor of the Building.  

4.  The police intercepted A on 2nd Floor of the Building.  A was searched and the police found on her a key.  A indicated that the key was the key to Flat 328 (“the Flat”). At around 8.35 pm, the police entered the Flat using the key found on A.  The Flat was a temporary housing flat of about 150 square feet in size, with one toilet and no bedroom.  The police searched the Flat and found on top of the refrigerator next to a bed, inter alia, the following: 

In a blue box:

(1) two plastic bags containing a total of 0.49 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.49 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as the ‘Ice’ drug);

(2) one plastic bag containing 0.54 grammes of a mixture containing 0.45 grammes of heroin hydrochloride;

(3) one plastic bag containing 3.18 grammes of a mixture containing 2.50 grammes of heroin hydrochloride;

(4) one glass bottle containing 4.22 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 4.16 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride; and

(5) a digital balance;

In a black pouch on top of the blue box;

(6) eight plastic bags containing 70.40 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 61.0 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride;

In a red box:

(7) one plastic bag containing 1.27 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.26 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride;

(8) eight plastic bags containing 25.2 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 25.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride; and

Between the red box and the blue box;

(9) a large number of empty transparent resealable plastic bags.

5.  In summary, there were in total 101.58 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 92.11 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and 3.72 grammes of a mixture containing 2.95 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.  

6.  Later that night, at around 0026 hours on 27 March 2024, the defendant and another female were observed entering the Building.  They were intercepted by the police, and upon enquiries, the defendant said that he was the registered tenant of the Flat. 

7.  The defendant was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs for the drugs found in the Flat.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that the drugs found in the Flat belonged to him and they had nothing to do with his girlfriend (ie A). 

8.  The defendant entered into a licence agreement with the Hong Kong Council of Social Service on 9 February 2023.  The Flat was licensed to the defendant under the said licence agreement.  

9.  In March 2024, the average retail price for methamphetamine was HK$538 per gramme, whereas the average retail price for heroin was HK$787 per gramme.  The drugs seized could have been sold at street level for HK$57,578.  

10.  The defendant now admits that at the material time, he knowingly possessed the drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.  

11.  As to the personal background of the defendant, he was born in Hong Kong in October 1970 and is now 55 years of age.  He was 53 years old at the time of the offence in March 2024.  He is single.  His mother and younger sister lives in Hong Kong.  The defendant received education up to Secondary Form 1 level.  His previous jobs include working in transportation and decoration.  He was a drug addict. 

12.  The criminal record admitted by the defendant shows that he had a large number of previous convictions for drug-related offences since 1994, including convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs on two occasions and possession of dangerous drugs on seven occasions.  His two convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs were recorded on respectively 20 June 2002 and 24 November 2016, and he was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months and 9 years and 4 months respectively.  He served these sentences and his last discharge from prison was on 15 July 2022. 

13.  The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.  The first step is to identify the relevant band (or bracket) applicable to the quantity of drug concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes.  It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant.  The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”.  The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced sentence”.

14.  Regarding the first step, the task is to identify the appropriate range applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned.  The narcotic contents of the total quantity of dangerous drugs seized were 92.11 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 2.95 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. 

15.  In HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the guideline brackets for a quantity of 92.11 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 2.95 grammes of heroin hydrochloride are respectively 11 to 15 years’ imprisonment and 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment. 

16.  As two different kinds of drugs were involved with a combined weight of 95.06 grammes, in order to assist me in identifying the overall starting point of the offence, the “Absurdity Test”, “Ratio Test” and “Conversion Test” as explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013 (Judgment dated 8 April 2014) have been conducted with the following results: 11 years and 5.2 months under the Absurdity Test; 11 years and 4.4 months under the Ratio Test; and 11 years and 4.6 months under the Conversion Test. 

17.  Having considered the above in the round and taking into account that more than one type of dangerous drug is involved, I consider that the starting point of 11 years and 5 months would be appropriate in the present case.  That is purely based on the quantity and types of drugs involved, before any consideration of the defendant’s role in the offence. 

18.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, my assessment should be based upon the evidence before the court, whether by admission or by direct or circumstantial evidence: see Herry Jane Yusuph, supra, paragraphs 58 and 61.  In this regard, I am prepared to accept that the defendant acted as a storekeeper of the drugs. 

19.  Third, in view of my aforesaid finding of the defendant’s role and culpability, I consider that a sentence of 11 years and 5 months’ imprisonment would be the appropriate overall “notional sentence after trial” for the offence in question. 

20.  Regarding step four, I am required to consider any aggravating features which would go to enhance the “notional sentence after trial” identified under step three above. There are two such aggravating features in the present case.

21.  First, this concerns the defendant’s previous convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  This is an accepted factor justifying an enhancement of sentence under step four.  For this, I would enhance the sentence of the defendant by 6 months’ imprisonment.  This would take the “notional sentence after trial” to 11 years and 11 months’ imprisonment. 

22.  Second, the defendant accepts that he committed the present offence whilst on court bail for an offence of possession of dangerous drugs, for which he was eventually convicted and sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 3 years.  In the exercise of my discretion, I would however choose not to further enhance the starting point for this second aggravating feature.  In my view, to further enhance his sentence would involve, to a large extent, double counting two aggravating features (ie for the persistence of the defendant in offending).  Further, I take into account the question of totality in that I have already enhanced the starting point by 6 months for the first aggravating feature. 

23.  Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is his timely plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount.  Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reduced to 7 years and 11 months’ imprisonment. 

24.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 7 years and 11 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and in the circumstances of the defendant.