HKSAR v. MAK KA HO

HCCC 397/2024

[2025] HKCFI 3531

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 397 OF 2024

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant pleads guilty to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs. On 12 October 2022, the defendant was intercepted by customs officers at the entrance of the residential address of the defendant.

He was then carrying a plastic bag. Upon search, four ziplock bags were found in the plastic bag. Inside the four ziplock bags, 28 smaller ziplock bags were found containing a total of 489 grammes of crystallised solid containing 485 grammes of ‘Ice’. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was carrying the ‘Ice’ for delivery for a reward of $4,000.

The defendant’s residential flat was then searched and the following items were found inside the flat, namely, a red plastic bag containing a silver coloured bag with some Chinese words printed on it, which contained a plastic bag containing 506 grammes of a crystallised solid containing 502 grammes of ‘Ice’. A plastic bag containing 1.79 grammes of a mixture containing 1.57 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, an electronic scale, a bundle of empty ziplock bags and HK$47,400 cash.

Under caution, the defendant admitted that he will deliver the drugs found for reward and the cash found was proceeds of the sale of drugs.

The total street value of the ‘Ice’ was about $681,575 and the value of the heroin was about $1,363.98.

The defendant is now 23 years old. In mitigation, Mr Ng, counsel for the defendant, submitted that the defendant naively believed that drug trafficking could make quick money but he realised too late the gravity of his mistake. Whilst on remand, the defendant has profoundly reflected upon his transgressions and feels immense remorse.

He is determined to rehabilitate and earnestly pleads for the court’s leniency to allow for an early reunion with his family. Mr Ng submitted that the defendant has also made efforts to assist the C&E on investigation of drug trafficking activities which resulted in various searches and arrests.

The defendant has written a letter to the court. In it, he expressed that he deeply regretted what he did. His parents also wrote letters to the court asking for the court’s leniency. The defendant’s friends, pastors of the church he has been going, and social workers of the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups also wrote letters to the court telling the court that the defendant is very remorseful. He is ready to be responsible for his wrongdoings and has been very positive in participating in rehabilitation activities.

The defendant even co-authored a reflective article with his mother which is about his remorse and personal development during remand and the article was published in a youth outreach bulletin and also featured in a magazine.

In considering the appropriate sentence for trafficking in ‘Ice’, I made reference to the judgments of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

In the present case, the quantity of ‘Ice’ involved in Charge 1 is 485 grammes. In Charge 2, the quantities of drugs involved are 502 grammes of ‘Ice’ and 1.57 grammes of heroin. Under Huang Ruifang, the starting point for trafficking in ‘Ice’ for 300 to 600 grammes should be 15 to 18 years’ imprisonment, and for trafficking in ‘Ice’ for 600 to 1,500 grammes, the starting point should be 18 to 20 years’ imprisonment.

For the quantities of ‘Ice’ in Charges 1 and 2, with arithmetic calculation, the starting point should therefore be just below and around 17 years respectively. However, I accept the submission of Mr Ng that in this case, it is appropriate to consider the total quantity of both charges for the overall sentence. I also accept Mr Ng’s submission that the role of the defendant is a courier.

And although a different drug is involved under Charge 2, the quantity of heroin found was relatively small. I do not regard it as an aggravating factor and will not give weight to the quantity of heroin in arriving at the appropriate starting point. In my judgement, the starting point for sentence for both charges should be 17 years’ imprisonment.

Considering the total quantity of ‘Ice’ involved, the overall starting point should be 18 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. Taking into account the defendant’s guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 12 years and 6 months. In consideration of the genuine remorse demonstrated by the defendant and his attempted assistance to the authorities, I call a further discount of 6 months to the sentence.

To conclude, for Charge 1 and Charge 2, the defendant is each sentenced to 10 years and 10 months’ imprisonment and I order that 1 year and 2 months of Charge 1 be served consecutively to the sentence of Charge 2, and the remaining sentence of the two charges be served concurrently.

The total sentence of the defendant for the two charges is therefore 12 years’ imprisonment.