HKSAR v. YUE HIN FUNG

HCCC 390/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 390 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charge

1.  On 6 November 2025, the Defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The charge involved 24.2 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 24.1 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.  On the same day, the Defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 24 July 2025 and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the Defendant confirmed his guilty plea to the trafficking charge and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.  The facts of the case can be summarized as follows. 

3.  On 18 April 2024, police officers were on patrol in Cheung Wang Estate, Tsing Yi and saw the Defendant who kept looking around and pressing his mobile phone.  When intercepted, the Defendant told the police officers that he lived in Sau Mau Ping and had gone to Tsing Yi to look for his friend.  Upon search, 14 plastic resealable bags containing 24.2 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 24.1 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride were found in the right front pocket of the Defendant’s trousers.

4.  Upon arrest and caution, the Defendant admitted that as he was greedy, he delivered the drug for others to earn some quick money.

5.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution that:

(1)  He had bought the dangerous drug in Lan Kwai Fong two nights ago from a friend called “Ah Lung” at $5,000; and

(2)  At the time of arrest, he had the dangerous drug in the right front pocket of his trousers. He had taken a taxi from home to Tsing Yi for selling the dangerous drug to his friends at $700 per bag.

6.  Examination of the Defendant’s mobile phone showed that:

(1)  He and four other persons had exchanged messages relating to drug trafficking activities between 11 April 2024 and 18 April 2024 and the messages were about the number of bags to be delivered to various locations, the amount for the deliveries, the rewards to be paid etc.; and

(2)  He had also exchanged messages relating to drug trafficking activities with a person known as “Big Boss” between 5 April 2024 and 17 April 2024.

7.  The estimated street value of the dangerous drug seized was $12,076.

8.  In the Summary of Facts, the Defendant admitted that he had unlawfully possessed the dangerous drug seized for the purpose of trafficking.

Background and mitigation

9.  The Defendant was born in Hong Kong in June 2004.  He is now aged 21 and was only 19 years old at the time of the offence.  His parents were divorced and before the arrest, he was living with his mother (aged 52, an elderly home worker)  and his younger brother (aged 19, a student).

10.  The Defendant had received education up to Form 3.  After that, he had worked as a vegetable stall worker earning about $20,000 monthly.  As he found the job too heavy for him, he quitted several months before his arrest. 

11.  The Defendant has a clear record.

12.  In the written mitigation submissions, his counsel, Mr. Wong, informed this Court that the Defendant was asked by bad peers to deliver the dangerous drug in order to earn quick money and he was promised $2,000 a day.  Mr. Wong further informed the Court that the Defendant asserted that he had said in the cautioned interview that he was going to sell the drug to his friends only because the police had told him to say so, in order that he would be treated by the court more leniently.  When told that a Newton hearing would need to be held and the Defendant may need to testify on this issue, Mr. Wong took further instructions from the Defendant.  After a short adjournment, Mr. Wong confirmed to the Court that the Defendant no longer wished to persist with this assertion.

13.  The Defendant has written a letter to this Court in which he indicated his deep remorse for the offence which he said was committed out of ignorance, greed, and influence by his senior peers.  The Defendant pleaded for the Court’s leniency in sentencing.

Sentence

14.  In sentencing the Defendant, I will follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

15.  The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drug in question.  In the present case, with a quantity of 24.1 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the notional starting point should be a term of about 7 years and 11 months’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 at §66. 

16.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the Defendant based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court.  Under caution, the Defendant admitted that he had bought the dangerous drug himself for the purpose of selling them to his friends.  His phone messages also revealed his involvement in drug trafficking activities.

17.  The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band the Defendant should come.  In my assessment, the Defendant’s role was that of an actual trafficker. 

18.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors.  Because of the Defendant’s role being the actual trafficker and noting his age at the time of the offence, I will enhance the notional starting point by 7 months, taking it to 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 

19.  The fifth step is to consider the mitigating factors, if any.  Given the seriousness of the offence, the only strong mitigating factor in the Defendant’s case is his guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount to reduce the enhanced notional starting point of 8 years and 6 months to a final sentence of 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

20.  Lastly, I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the Defendant.  Accordingly, the Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and 8 months.

Exhibits

21.  An Order in terms of the Prosecution’s application, not objected to by the Defence, was granted.