HKSAR v. WAT HUNG, MICHELLE

HCCC 326/2024

[2025] HKCFI 4346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 326 OF 2024

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty on 7 October 2024 to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today, she confirms her plea and admission of the Summary of Facts.

Particulars of the Offence are as follows,

The defendant on 6 April 2023, at Room 708, Boon Yuet House, Choi Wan (1) Estate, in Kowloon, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 8,554 grammes of a mixture containing 6,868 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

The facts are straight-forward. The police had information and obtained a search warrant for Room 708, and on the morning of the offence date, had mounted an anti-narcotics operation outside this room. At 2.38 pm, the defendant’s boyfriend was intercepted coming out of and leaving Room 708.

The police executed a search warrant and entered the premises. The defendant was lying on a bed in the living room. During the house search, the police found all the drugs of this offence either on the balcony of the premises or in the kitchen. They also found paraphernalia associated with weighing and packing dangerous drugs as well as items used to inhale and consume dangerous drugs. The police also found cash of $1,431,500. The tenancy agreement found named the defendant as the sole tenant. She was arrested and under caution admitted that all the heroin found inside the premises belonged to her. She admits that the estimated street value of that amount of heroin was approximately $6,740,000.

Mitigation

The defendant is now 58 years old and was born in mainland China. At the time of her arrest, she was unemployed. She has an adult son studying in a university in Hong Kong. She is not a woman with a clear record, she has five previous convictions of which one is related to dangerous drugs, a possession of dangerous drugs conviction back in July 2005.

Mr Lo has said all he can say on her behalf in mitigation. The defendant’s best mitigation is her plea at the earliest opportunity. I have been told she single-handedly raised her son after divorcing her husband when her son was very young. In order to provide him with the best possible living environment and education, she resorted to trafficking in dangerous drugs to make money.

I have received a letter from the defendant and her son. She expresses remorse and regret. Her son is sad that she will now miss out on him forging a career but he will work hard to ensure she never has to worry about their financial situation after she is released from prison. He asks for leniency on behalf of his mother.

Sentencing

I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the most recent authority, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

In approach to sentencing, a number of steps have been identified which the court should take, such as assessing the gravity of the offence and applicable guideline; identifying the defendant’s role; where within the guideline the defendant should lie; any aggravating factors; any mitigating factors; and lastly, passing a sentence which is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guidelines according to the drugs seized.

The sentencing guidelines for heroin is now found in the most recent authority of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234. The starting point for trafficking in heroin between 5,000 to 15,000 grammes is 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically speaking, trafficking in 6,868 grammes of heroin hydrochloride will attract a starting point of 24 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

I have considered the evidence and although she was in possession of a large amount of drugs and $1.4 million, there is no real evidence to suggest she was anything more than a storekeeper and courier. Therefore, I find the mathematical starting point of 24 years and 3 months’ imprisonment appropriate in this case.

The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors, I see no such factors in this case.

The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount. I will take the starting point of 24 years and 3 months’ imprisonment and reduce it by one-third. The defendant therefore is sentenced to 16 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

With the last step of the six steps in mind, I consider this sentence, although substantial, to be fair, just and balanced in light of the circumstances and facts of the offence as well as the defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 16 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.