HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHIN HEI

HCCC 428/2023

[2025] HKCFI 4059

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 428 OF 2023

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded not guilty to 1 count of trafficking in dangerous drugs[1] before Magistrate Ms. Leung Siu-ling and was committed, on 14^th December 2023, to the Court of First Instance for trial.

2.  By way of a letter dated 14^th August 2025, 14 days before the first day of trial, the defendant indicated through his solicitors that he intended to plead guilty to the charge.

3.  A plea and sentence hearing was fixed accordingly, and the defendant pleaded guilty, admitted to the Summary of Facts, and was duly convicted.

4.  Particulars of the charge are that the defendant, on 30^th March 2022, at Room E, Unit U, 13^th floor, Phase 1, Kwun Tong Industrial Centre, Kwun Tong Road, Kowloon, together with NG Ka-yui[2], unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 152.02 grammes of a solid containing 108.9 grammes of ketamine and 12.5 grammes of a solid containing 8.52 grammes of cocaine.

FACTS

5.  Kwun Tong Industrial Centre (“the building”) was the target of a police anti-narcotics operation on 30^th March 2022.

6.  NG Ka-yui (“Ng”), the other person named in the count, was seen entering the building at 7pm.  He was intercepted at 7:15pm when he came out of Room E.

7.  Dangerous drugs were found on his person and he was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs. They would later form the subject matter of count 1 in HCCC 429/2023.  

8.  Ng was then brought back into Room E where a search warrant was executed.  More dangerous drugs, together with various paraphernalia connected to packaging and trafficking in dangerous drugs were found and seized.

9.  Ng was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs again.  He claimed under caution that the “coke” and “K chai” in Room E belonged to “Chan Chai (陳仔)” and “Boss Cho (曹老闆)”, and that he was only responsible for their delivery[3]. Part of the drugs in Room E would later become the subject matter of count 2 in Mr. Ng’s case.

10.  At around 11:26pm the same day, the defendant was intercepted outside Room E.  The defendant said he intended to go into Room E.  He was escorted to the room and a key found on him could open the door to Room E.

11.  The defendant was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  Under caution, he claimed that the items inside Room E belonged to a “Boss Cho” (“個倉啲嘢係曹老闆嘅”).  The defendant told the police that by “items” he meant “cocaine and ketamine” (“毒品嗰啲可樂可卡因同Ka仔”).

12.  In summary, the Police found in Room E, inter alia, a total of 152.02 grammes of a solid containing 108.9 grammes of ketamine and 12.5 grammes of a solid containing 8.52 grammes of cocaine, which are the dangerous drugs as particularized in the charge.

13.  The defendant exercised his right to silence in the subsequent video recorded interview.

14.  Investigations revealed that the defendant and Ng had over 370 phone call communications in the period 3^rd February and 30^th March 2022.

15.  CCTV footages of the building captured the defendant and Ng entering and leaving Unit U of the building on 29^th and 30^th March 2022.

16.  In March 2022, the estimated street value of powder cocaine was about HK$889 per gramme, that of crack cocaine was about HK$1,488 per gramme and that of ketamine was about HK$589 per gramme.

17.  12.5 grammes of cocaine (as a mixture) could be sold at street level at HK$11,113 in powder form or HK$18,600 in crack form; and 152.02 grammes of ketamine (as a mixture) could be sold at street level at about HK$89,450.

18.  The defendant, through his admission to the Summary of Facts, had admitted and accepted that he had unlawfully trafficked in the dangerous drugs in Room E.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

19.  The defendant was of clear record.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

20.  The defendant was born in Hong Kong in January 2007.  He was 15 years and 2 months old at the time of his arrest.  He is now 18 years and 7 months old.  

21.  The defendant’s father is aged 73 and a retiree, his mother is 51 and working as a cleaner, and his elder sister works at a jewellery shop as a sales assistant.  The parents divorced in 2017 and his father had moved out.  Despite the separation, they have maintained a warm and close family relationship.

22.  The defendant had just completed his Form 4 studies in July 2025.  He had since worked part-time at a fast food restaurant to ease his mother’s financial burden.  The defendant decided to quit school after deciding to plead guilty in this case, knowing that he is facing a substantial sentence.  

23.  Ms. Ma, counsel for the defendant, told the court that the defendant met “Boss Cho” when he was hanging out in the neighborhood while school was suspended during the pandemic in late February and early March 2022.

24.  In around mid-March, Boss Cho asked if the defendant was interested in making some “quick and easy” money doing some packaging work.  When the defendant agreed, Boss Cho took him to Room E, where ketamine and cocaine were stored, and taught the defendant how to pack by weighing and then shoving small quantity of drugs into transparent re-sealable plastic bags.

25.  Boss Cho promised the defendant $5,000 if he worked there for the entire month.  He gave a key to Room E to the defendant, telling him that he was required to work the morning and late evening shifts, but that he could leave when he had completed the packaging work.  On the day of his arrest, the defendant was returning to Room E for his late evening shift.

26.  In view of the late indication of his guilty plea, Ms. Ma accepts that the defendant would likely only be granted a 20% discount, in accordance with the guidelines in HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1.

27.  Ms. Ma pointed out that the defendant was below 16 when he committed the offence; that he had been cooperative, admitting to his knowledge and possession of the drugs in Room E; that the defendant was clearly manipulated by Boss Cho who lured the defendant into drug trafficking, “taking advantage of his vulnerability, naivety and ignorance”.

28.  Ms. Ma submitted that the defendant’s role was a packager who worked in Room E, acting upon the orders of Boss Cho, who was “the actual mastermind behind the syndicated trafficking operation”, suggesting that the defendant “should be placed at the lower end of the echelon, in terms of role, culpability and involvement”.

29.  Ms. Ma, fairly, conceded that the defendant does not fall into the extreme youth category, and acknowledged that “his personal circumstances and youth would pale into insignificance when looking at the overall gravity of the present offence”.

SENTENCING

30.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for trafficking in dangerous drugs is that of life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

31.  The sentencing approach and tariff bands as set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, and HKSAR v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 are applied as follows.  

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff bands

32.  For the 108.9g of ketamine and 8.52g of cocaine, the applicable guideline tariff bands are, respectively, “6 to 9 years”, and “2 to 5 years”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

33.  The defendant was engaged in the packaging of dangerous drugs on more than one occasion.  He was given and had kept the key to Room E, the storage for large quantity of dangerous drugs.  He was on two daily shifts doing packaging work.  He was part of a drug trafficking syndicate as Ms. Ma had put it.  The defendant trafficked in drugs for a monetary reward.  

34.  I find that despite the relatively young age of the defendant at the time, he was not a naïve young man who knew nothing about the danger of being involved with dangerous drugs and associating with people like ‘Boss Cho’.  As I had mentioned in the sentencing of Ng in HCCC 429/2023, with the effort the government has put into educating young people by way of promotional campaigns, it would have been impossible that the defendant did not realize what he was stepping into when he took the job, took the key and went up to Room E to take up his shifts in packaging cocaine and ketamine.  

35.  I find that his role is more important than a mere courier since he held the key to Room E, and his culpability higher since he was engaged in weighing and packaging the drugs.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

36.  Since 2 different types of dangerous drugs were trafficked, I adopt the combined approach as propounded in HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin [2004] 3 HKC 367.  I have applied the absurdity, conversion and ratio tests as used in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong CACC 318/2013 to assist me in arriving at the correct starting point.  The tests are applied on the basis of an arithmetical application of the tariffs without accounting for the enhancements based on the defendant’s higher culpability.  

ABSURDITY TEST

37.  On the basis of all 117.42g of narcotics were the more potent drug of cocaine, any combined starting point above 9 years 9 months would be regarded as absurdly high.

CONVERSION TEST

38.  If the ketamine is converted into the more potent drug of cocaine that would yield the equivalent sentence, the total converted quantity of cocaine would be 41.28g, which would have a notional starting point of 7 years 4 month.

RATIO TEST

39.  Based on the proportion of the different drugs involved, the sentence should be about 7 years.

THE COMBINED NOTIONAL STARTING POINT

40.  Having regard to the above test results, taking into consideration the defendant’s role and culpability, I will adopt a combined starting point of 8 years 1 month’s imprisonment, being 9 months higher than the conversion starting point.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

41.  The defendant trafficked in 2 different types of drugs and it is trite law that trafficking in more than one variety of dangerous drugs is an aggravating factor, because the trafficker will be able to cater to a wider market[4]. Given the quantity involved, I will enhance the sentence by 3 months, taking the combined starting point to 8 years 4 months.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

42.  Although Ms. Ma has correctly and fairly stated that she does not rely on the defendant’s age and personal circumstances as mitigating factors, I will nevertheless refer to my observations when I sentenced Ng, some of which I have already mentioned when considering the culpability of the defendant.

43.  Just as with Ng, the defendant had received education up to secondary level.  All students in Hong Kong would have been taught to stay away from drugs.  The defendant could not have escaped noticing the government promotional materials warning young people about the serious consequences of getting involved with drugs.

44.  The defendant was given the key to the Room E, he was taking up two shifts per day, and was being promised a not insubstantial payment for his trafficking.

45.  Taking into consideration the circumstances of the defendant’s commission of the offence, I find that he was not a simple and naïve young person who was led astray by others.  The defendant knew full well the consequences of his actions when he decided to take up an important role in this trafficking operation.  

46.  Furthermore, as McWalters J stated clearly in the case of HKSAR v Bayanmunkh [2012] 2 HKC 233:

“…no special consideration will be accorded to the young, the aged, the ill or disadvantaged or the financially impoverished who are recruited to become drug couriers.”

47.  These principles are applicable in the present case as well, where the defendant was recruited to be more than a mere courier.  As such, the only mitigating factor is the defendant’s guilty plea, for which he will be given a 20% discount, as a result of his late indication of plea.  

Step 6: Totality

48.  Taking a step back, I find the sentence fair, just and balanced.

FINAL SENTENCE

49.  The final sentence is 80 months, or 6 years 8 months’ imprisonment after plea.