HKSAR v. CHOW HEI CHOY

HCCC 184/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 184 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of “trafficking in a dangerous drug” and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 26 May 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed his plea and admission to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of the charge state that on 24 July 2023, outside No. 132 Tai Po Road, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 260.5 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 260.5 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as the ‘Ice’ drug. 

3.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows.  On 24 July 2023 at about 9.22 pm, police at a roadblock outside No. 132 Tai Po Road, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon intercepted an approaching taxi.  The taxi carried the defendant at the back seat.  Upon search of the taxi, the police seized the following at the defendant’s feet: 

(1) A tissue wrapping a plastic bag containing 27.5 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 27.5 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride; and

(2) A headphone case containing 13 bags containing altogether 233 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 233 grammes of ‘Ice’.

4.  The taxi driver confirmed that the defendant ordered his taxi via mobile application.  He drove and picked up the defendant at North Point.  The defendant then alighted from the taxi at Berwick Street, Shek Kip Mei but returned to the taxi soon after.  The defendant then asked to go to Soy Street, Mong Kok.  They were intercepted by the police along the way. 

5.  The dash camera in the taxi shows that the defendant boarded the taxi empty handed at around 8.52 pm that night.  The defendant later alighted the taxi for a short time at Berwick Street and returned holding a headphone case. 

6.  The estimated street value of the ‘Ice’ seized at the time of the offence was about HK$148,746. 

7.  The defendant now admits that he was in possession of the ‘Ice’ seized in the taxi for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. 

8.  Regarding the personal background of the defendant, he was born in Hong Kong in April 1967.  He is now aged 58.  He had received education up to Secondary Form 1 level.  The defendant’s parents have passed away.  He has two elder brothers, one younger brother and three elder sisters.  The defendant is single but he has been cohabiting with her girlfriend for more than 10 years prior to his arrest. They have no children. 

9.  The defendant was employed as a foreman of a cleaning company since 2022, earning HK$16,000 per month, with HK$3,000 to HK$4,000 extra monthly income from selling recyclable materials.  However, he quitted his job in June 2023 after having an argument with his senior. 

10.  The defendant has seven previous convictions of possession of dangerous drugs with sentences varying from a fine to 10 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant was also twice sentenced to the DATC.  The defendant has a total of 61 previous criminal convictions, but none for trafficking in dangerous drugs. 

11.  According to the defendant, he received a call from his friend called “Hung Mo” on the material day.  Hung Mo asked him to deliver drugs form Berwick Street to somewhere near Stanford Hotel in Mong Kok.  The defendant agreed and would be paid HK$5,000.  The defendant submits that he was only a courier and he did not know the exact quantity of the dangerous drugs to be delivered. 

12.  The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.  The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band (or bracket) applicable to the quantity of drug concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes.  It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant.  The fourth step is to consider the aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”.  The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced sentence”. 

13.  Regarding the first step, for 260.5 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 11 to 15 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, at paragraph 66. 

14.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a courier of the dangerous drug. 

15.  Third, for 260.5 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a “notional sentence after trial” of 14 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.  From my finding of the defendant’s role and culpability at Step 2 above, I see no reason for enhancing the “notional sentence after trial” beyond 14 years and 3 months. 

16.  Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the “notional sentence after trial”.  Although the defendant has a bad criminal record, the present case is the first time he has been convicted of the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. 

17.  Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is his timely plea, for which I will give him a one‑third discount.  Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reduced to 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 

18.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of the defendant. 

19.  The defendant is accordingly sentenced to 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.