HKSAR v. HUANG CHI FAI

HCCC 304/2025

[2026] HKCFI 195

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 304 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: On 11 September this year the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug before a magistrate and was committed to the High Court, Court of First Instance for sentence. It is alleged that on the 30th day of May 2024, outside Flat 2418, Ching On House, Tsz Ching Estate in Tsz Wan Shan, he unlawfully trafficked in 69 grammes of a solid containing 56.5 grammes of cocaine.

According to the Summary of Facts which he admitted at the time of his guilty plea, on 30 May 2024 the customs officers conducted examination on an inbound FedEx parcel originated from Canada. The consignee of the parcel was Huang Chi Fai. The address was Flat 2418, 24/F, Ching On House, Tsz Ching Estate, Tsz Wan Shan. There was also a telephone number for contact purpose.

Upon examination of the parcel, it was found to contain coffee, face cream, facial masks, and seasoning packets. The Customs Officer found that three out of 11 seasoning packets, the sealing was unusual. Upon further examination, three packets containing all the drug particularised in the charge was found inside.

The parcel was repackaged. At around 4.04 pm on that day, the Customs Officer disguised as a courier and called the telephone number of the consignee. The defendant answered the phone and confirmed the consignee address. He said he was at Kwai Chung at the time and asked the officer whether the officer could deliver the parcel to Kwai Chung instead. The officer informed him that he could only deliver the parcel to the consignee address stated on the parcel, and agreed that he would call the defendant first before the delivery.

Later that afternoon, the defendant told the officer that he was already on his way and instructed the officer not to ring the doorbell upon his arrival. He said he would wait for the officer at the back staircase outside the address.

The Customs Officer who disguised as a FedEx courier arrived at the address with the parcel and called the consignee’s number. The defendant answered the call and came out from the door of the back staircase. He received the parcel from the Customs Officer, showed his identity card and confirmed the particulars on the parcel. He also signed on the delivery record to confirm his receipt of the parcel.

Around 5.45 pm on that day, the Customs Officer revealed his identity and the defendant was arrested. He stated under caution that he knew the parcel contained dangerous drug but he was not sure what type of drug they were. He helped someone to collect the parcel and would deliver it to a person named “Fei Gei” belonging to the Tsuen Wan Shing Wo. He was promised a reward of HK$2,000 but he had not yet received the reward. He was not willing to participate in the controlled delivery operation as he was afraid of any potential retribution.

The estimated street value of the drug seized was about HK$54,303.

The defendant also voluntarily provided the passcode of his mobile phone to the customs officer. Upon examination of his mobile phone, the officers found WhatsApp conversation between the defendant and a person called “Fei Gei” on the disappearing message mode. The defendant had received WhatsApp messages from FedEx regarding the parcel. He had made enquiry about the status of the parcel and made arrangement about the delivery options. He had also received a WhatsApp message from a person “Cheung Tsz Hei” who seemingly tried to collect a debt from the defendant and threatened him. The defendant replied that he would be able to repay the sum in due course but he had not yet received the money.

The defendant admits that at the material time, he had knowledge of the drug seized and he was knowingly in possession of all the dangerous drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

The defendant is a person of age 17. He was only 16 years old at the time of the offence. He has no previous criminal record in Hong Kong.

In mitigation, counsel Mr Wong Po-wing informed me he was born in Hong Kong and received education up to Form 3, and he also studied for year 1 at a technical college. At the time of his arrest he was living with his family in a public flat and he was doing casual jobs as a waiter.

Counsel rightly conceded that there was an international element involved in the offence which is a matter that goes to the role and culpability of the offender. Counsel submitted that he was only 16 at the time of the offence with a clear record, and he was being made used of by others to commit the offence. Counsel urged this court to give him a full one-third discount for his early plea of guilty, saying that he was very remorseful.

Counsel also submitted a letter prepared by the defendant himself, showing his remorse and asked for leniency. There was also another letter prepared by his family members, asking this court to exercise its discretion to impose a lenient sentence.

There was a certificate showing that he was involved in voluntary service for one day on 15 May 2023. There was also a letter prepared by a group scout leader who said that the defendant was a member of their troop and asked this court to impose a non-custodial sentence because he was a person who was capable of positive contribution and rehabilitation.

In sentencing the defendant, I do bear in mind the approach and the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 as clarified by the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

According to the recent guideline case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, trafficking in between 50 and 200 grammes of cocaine narcotic would result in a mathematical starting point of between 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment. So mathematically the starting point for trafficking in 56.5 grammes of cocaine narcotic is 8 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

In assessing the role and culpability of the defendant, I accept that he was purely a courier. The mathematical starting point is appropriate for people at the lower bottom of the trafficking hierarchy such as a courier. However, this case is aggravated by the fact that there was an international element. The parcel was a FedEx parcel sent from Canada and the defendant was the consignee of the parcel. He agreed to collect it for a reward of $2,000 with full knowledge that it contained dangerous drug.

Having taken into account the international element of the offence, I consider that it would be appropriate to add 10 months to the mathematical starting point. So the notional sentence after trial should be 9 years’ imprisonment.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge at an early stage. As such he is entitled to a full one-third discount. That would reduce his sentence to one of 6 years’ imprisonment.

He was 16 years old at the time of the offence and cannot be regarded as a person of extreme youth. However, I do bear in mind that he was still a young person at the time and he was a man of clear record. In the circumstances, I am prepared to exercise my discretion to give him an extra discount of 2 months as a matter of leniency. So the total sentence that I will impose is one of 5 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.