HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHUN KIT

HCCC 286/2025

[2026] HKCFI 503

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 286 OF 2025

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant, Cheung Chun-kit, pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted the facts in the court below. The defendant’s case was committed to Court of First Instance for sentence.

The defendant’s case was brought up for plea and sentence on 9 December 2025. Mr David Chu, defence counsel, told me that the defendant wanted to be represented privately and did not want to be represented by the legal team assigned by the Director of Legal Aid.

The defendant asked for an adjournment of 40 weeks for him to make arrangements for private representation. I gave the defendant a 4-week adjournment and adjourned this case to today.

This morning, the defendant is represented by the same legal team. He confirmed his guilty plea and admission of the facts before me. I convicted the defendant as charged.

The offence took place on 13 March 2024 at a public housing unit in Cheung Sha Wan. The charge concerns 3 plastic bags containing 1,044 grammes of a mixture containing 771 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, a sort of heroin.

The Facts

The Summary of Facts dated 30 April 2025 reads:

“1. On 13 March 2024, the police conducted an anti-narcotic operation in Cheung Sha Wan and laid ambush at the staircases of 5th Floor, Un Shing House, Un Chau Estate, Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon, Hong Kong. At about 11.06 pm, the police intercepted the defendant when he was seen returning to Room 513, 5th Floor, Un Shing House (“the Premises”). The police declared their police identities and requested for a search on the defendant in the Premises.

2.   Upon inquiry, the defendant’s younger brother was in the Premises.  A body search was conducted on the defendant with nothing illicit or suspicious being found.  Only cash of HK$50, one mobile phone and a bunch of keys were found on him.

3.   Thereafter, a search was conducted in the Premises.  Upon search, one carton box was found in the bedroom of the defendant.  Inside that carton box, there were:

(a) 3 plastic packets containing a total of 1,044 grammes of a mixture containing 771 grammes of heroin hydrochloride;

(b) 44 plastic packets containing a total of 15,388 grammes of a solid in which substances controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, were not detected;

(c) one electronic scale;

(d) one vacuum sealer; and

(e) one roll of sealer bags.

4.   The defendant was arrested and cautioned for ‘trafficking in a dangerous drug’.

5.  Under caution at scene, the defendant admitted that he was asked by Ah Pak to store the white powder drug.  His family members had no knowledge of the drug.  He, acting on instructions of Ah Pak, picked up the drug from an unknown driver at the 7-Eleven convenience store on Hing Wah Street that night.  Ah Pak told him on the phone that the carton box contained white powder drug which was about 20 kilogrammes and worthy of several million dollars, a scale, a sealer and some plastic bags.  Ah Pak also told him to wait for instructions to repackage and distribute the drug within one week for which he would earn $2,000 per each distribution.

6.   In the subsequent video-recorded interviews, the defendant admitted the offence under caution by saying, inter alia, that:

(a) He was unemployed. He lived with his parents and younger brother in the Premises.

(b) He was instructed by Ah Pak to store the carton box and the items therein.

(c) In that evening, Ah Pak sent him WhatsApp messages informing him that a carton box containing heroin would be delivered to him by a driver. He therefore knew that the carton box contained drug.

(d) At about 8 pm on that day, a Gogovan driver contacted him and asked him to collect the carton box outside 7‑Eleven’s convenience store on Hing Wah Street. He did so and took the carton box home afterwards.

(e) He was asked by Ah Pak to keep the carton box at his home until someone needed the drug in which case he would take the drug downstairs for distribution and he would receive $2,000 per each distribution.

(f) Upon returning home, only his younger brother was at home. He took the carton box containing drug to his bedroom and opened it. There were $500 cash, white powder and an electronic scale in the carton box. The HK$500 was his reward. He took a picture of the carton box and sent it to Ah Pak afterwards. He then resealed the carton box.

(g) His younger brother, who was watching TV in the living room at the material time, had no knowledge of what he was doing with the carton box in his bedroom.

(h) It was the first time that he received such a job from Ah Pak because he was in need of money. Ah Pak told him to distribute the drug within a week.

(i) He asked Ah Pak why there was a scale in the carton box. Ah Pak told him that he might have to repackage the heroin upon further instruction.

(j) He did not count the number of packages of drug and was told by Ah Pak that there were about 20 kilogrammes of heroin in the carton box, which worth at about several million dollars.

(k) At about 8.15 pm, he went out for dinner and spent the $500 on food. The $50 cash found on him was the remaining.

(l) He did not know the full name of Ah Pak. He came to know him as well as two other persons, nicknamed ‘Siu Po’ and ‘Chu Chai’ in February 2024 when he was having drinks and smoking downstairs. They all exchanged WhatsApp contacts.

7.  The CCTV record of the lobby of Un Shing House captured that the defendant went back to his home on the 5th floor of Un Shing House with the carton box at about 7.50 pm on 13 March 2024.

8.  Three fingerprints respectively lifted from the vacuum sealer, the electronic scale and the carton box with tapes were all found to be the defendant’s upon examination.

9.   Upon examination on the mobile phone seized from the defendant, there were WhatsApp messages relating to the carton box in question found in the conversation records between the defendant and one named ‘Ah Pak’ between 11.50 pm on 12 March 2024 and 11.06 pm on 13 March 2024.  The content of which was consistent with what the defendant had said under caution.  The defendant also sent a picture of the carton box in question to Ah Pak at about 7.54 pm on 13 March 2024.

10.   The estimated street value of the dangerous drug seized was about $821,628.

11.  The defendant now admits and accepts that at the material time he unlawfully trafficked in all the dangerous drugs seized.”

Antecedents of the Defendant

The defendant is now 22, locally born, he received education up to Secondary 5 level in Hong Kong. He resided with his parents and younger brothers at the Premises. In 2021, the defendant was convicted of section 19 wounding and was sentenced to DC. In 2023, he was convicted of one count of theft and was fined.

Mitigation

I have considered all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Chu in mitigation. Mr Chu submitted that what happened in the last hearing did cause undesirable delay. However, the defendant did not change his guilty plea. It was the defendant’s unnecessary obsession for private representation which caused the adjournment. The defendant now realises it is wrong and offers his apology.

Mr Chu submits that the defendant was unemployed at the time of the offence. He committed the offence for quick money. Mr Chu submits that the defendant was not the mastermind of the case and he only played the role of a storekeeper and courier. He cooperated with the police and made frank admission after arrest.

For the 771 grammes of heroin in this case, Mr Chu submits, based on the tariff and on a strict arithmetic calculation, the starting point is 17 years and 1 month, Mr Chu submits that the defendant is entitled to one-third discount for his early guilty plea.

Consideration

I have considered the following sentencing authorities placed before me. On the six-step sentencing approach, HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. On the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in heroin, HKSAR v Huang Ruifang No.3 [2005] 2 HKLRD 138.

I have considered the facts of the case, the nature and quantity of the dangerous drugs, that is 771 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, the background of the defendant and all the matters urged on the defendant behalf by Mr Chu.

771 grammes of heroin hydrochloride brings the defendant within the band of sentence for between 500 and 1,500 grammes of narcotics. That is between 16 and 20 years’ imprisonment, paragraph 60 of Huang Ruifang No. 3.

The facts show that the defendant’s role was that of a storekeeper and courier. His job was to store the heroin at his residence, repackage the drug and deliver the drug to others for monetary reward. The defendant’s fingerprints were found on the vacuum sealer, the electronic scale and the carton boxes with tapes.

For the defendant’s mental culpability, it should be noted that he was told, albeit erroneously, that there were about 20 kilogrammes of heroin in the carton box, which was worth at about several million dollars. The actual quantity of the heroin was in fact 1,044 grammes of a mixture containing 771 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

The estimated street value of the drug seized was about $821,628.

In my judgment, given the role and culpability of the defendant, the defendant came close to the middle range within the band of sentence of 16 to 20 years, I adopt 17 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, that is 207 months, as the notional sentence after trial. There is no aggravating factor bearing upon the notional sentence after trial.

The defendant’s last‑minute decision to change his legal team on 9 December 2005 resulted in unnecessary delay. At the end, the defendant is represented by the same legal team and the mitigation submission is the same as the one submitted for the last hearing, except for the apology tendered.

A defendant who pleads guilty at the first available opportunity and thereby saving the court’s time is entitled to one-third reduction for his timely guilty plea. In this case, a full one-third reduction means the sentence would be brought down to 11 years and 6 months, that is 138 months.

However, the adjournment occasioned by the defendant’s last‑minute decision to change his legal representation has caused delay in the proceedings and wasted the court’s time and public money. The discount for the defendant’s guilty plea in this case should be a little less than one-third. In my judgment, the sentence on the plea should be 11 years 6 months and 10 days’ imprisonment.

Other than the guilty plea, there is no other valid mitigating factor. In my judgment, a sentence of 11 years 6 months and 10 days’ imprisonment is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 11 years and 6 months and 10 days’ imprisonment.