HKSAR v. LIU CHUN SING

CACC 208 /2016

[2026] HKCA 1638

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 208 OF 2016

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 380 OF 2015)

________________________

________________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

1.  On 17 June 2016, the applicant pleaded not guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 1,188.20 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1,177.70 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as “Ice”), contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  Following a trial before Zervos J (as Zervos JA then was) and a jury, on 27 June 2016, the applicant was convicted of the count and sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment[1].

2.  By way of a Form XI Notice filed on 27 May 2025, the applicant has sought leave to appeal against his sentence out of time[2]. The respondent opposes the application.

3.  In his accompanying letter to the Court, the applicant stated that he wishes to benefit from the revised sentencing guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3)[3].

Facts of the case

4.  The applicant had been the tenant of Flat C, 4/F of Lun May Building (“the Unit”)[4] since 7 June 2014.  On 27 December 2014, he was seen, on two separate occasions, carrying a chequered bag and a ‘9N9’ logo bag on entering the building.  In the early morning of 29 December 2014, the applicant left the Unit and the landlady repossessed it.  The landlady found the drugs in the Unit at around noon inside the chequered bag in a false ceiling[5], which also contained the ‘9N9’ logo bag; the matter was accordingly referred to the police.  At 15:10 hours on 29 December 2014, upon investigation, police officers found and seized, amongst other things, the following items in the Unit[6]:

(i)  A total of 1,177.70 grammes of “Ice” narcotic in the chequered bag and the ‘9N9’ bag hidden in the false ceiling[7] of the Unit;

(ii)  Two sets of electronic scales; and

(iii)  A stack of transparent re-sealable bags.

5.  A key to the Unit was found on the applicant and seized upon his arrest.  The total market value of the dangerous drugs seized from the Unit was about HK$519,243[8].

Sentencing

6.  The applicant was 44 years of age at the time of sentence, educated to Form 5 level and unemployed.  He had evidently had a long-standing and serious drug problem: it was said in mitigation that he had been addicted to “Ice” for 2 to 3 years, and, before that, to heroin for over 10 years[9]. He had accumulated previous convictions for drug or drug-related offences in 1993, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2012 and 2013[10]. The conviction entered in 2012 was for trafficking in dangerous drugs, for which he was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment.  For his last two convictions for possession of dangerous drugs in August 2013, he was sentenced to a total of 15 months’ imprisonment[11]. The applicant was discharged around 27 May 2014.  The present offence was committed shortly after his release from prison[12].

7.  The applicant was single, lived in a flat with his friend, had four distant siblings; his father was 82 years of age at the time of sentence and his mother had passed away in 2008[13].  The applicant had not kept in contact with his family for over a decade, since incurring substantial debts following which he was pursued by loan sharks[14].

8.  The judge applied the sentencing guidelines prevailing at the time in HKSAR v Abdallah[15] and passed a sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment after trial for trafficking in 1,177.70 grammes of “Ice” narcotic[16].  The judge saw no meaningful mitigation to warrant a reduction in the sentence[17].

Ground of appeal

9.  Having been refused Legal Aid on 11 September 2025, the applicant has filed homemade submissions dated 20 November 2025, 18 December 2025, 27 March 2026 and 11 May 2026 respectively, which may be summarised as follows:

(i)  He is entitled to benefit from the revised sentencing guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3), pursuant to which the former bracket of 600 to 1,200 grammes of “Ice”, attracting 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment under Abdallah, was replaced by a bracket of 600 to 1,500 grammes attracting 18 to 20 years’ imprisonment;

(ii)  Since he did not play any important role in the trafficking, he should receive a reduction in the arithmetical starting point for sentence; and

(iii)  The conditions in Seabrook v HKSAR[18] have been met for present purposes.

Before me this morning, the applicant applied for an adjournment pending the decision of the Court of Final Appeal in Lam Man Tak.  I have no knowledge as to whether that appeal is being pursued further but, even if it is, the applicant is entitled to renew his application to the Court of Appeal if he deems it appropriate.

The respondent’s submissions

10.  Ms Ng, for the respondent, opposes the application for extension of time and the grant of leave to appeal against sentence.  She submits the recent decision in HKSAR v Lam Man Tak[19] has resolved the cut-off date for the application of the revised guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3); accordingly, for those, like the applicant, who were sentenced before 18 September 2018 and who are no longer “in the system”, the Abdallah guidelines would continue to apply.

11.  The respondent further submits that the present application was lodged almost 9 years out of time and no explanation for such delay has been given apart from the change of sentencing guidelines.  The respondent submits that there are no exceptional circumstances for this Court to intervene and the sentence passed was proper and in accordance with the law at the time it was passed; it is not manifestly excessive.

Consideration

12.  This offence was committed in December 2014, some 12 years ago.  The applicant was sentenced in June 2016, more than a decade ago.  Although the applicant did not seek to appeal against his sentence within the prescribed time, and is now almost 9 years out of time in mounting the present application, he could still fall within the appeal system if he can obtain an extension of time within which to appeal.  However, he will have to persuade the Court that it would be shutting out a viable ground of appeal if it refused to extend time: see HKSAR v Yim Shek Wo[20].

13.  In my judgment, there are no reasonably arguable grounds for appealing sentence in this case.  The applicant was sentenced more than two years before the cut-off date of 18 September 2018, from which date he might have been able to benefit from the revised guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3).  Having been sentenced well before the “state of affairs” referred to in Seabrook even came into existence, he still falls to be sentenced in accordance with the guidelines in Abdallah.

14.  The applicant’s comparison with the case of Lam Man Tak is misplaced.  In that case, the Court decided that the applicant was still in the system because it accepted, as did the respondent, that he had given valuable information to the authorities, which meant that the Court could reconsider his sentence.  Since he was therefore still an appellant for that purpose, the Court deemed him to be still within the appeal system.  For that reason, and that reason only, the Court considered the revised guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3) but decided not to apply them given the appellant’s significant role and culpability in the offence, which the Court described as “obviously higher than those of a storekeeper or courier and would have warranted a sentence in the region of that which he received under the previous Abdallah guidelines”[21].

15.  Neither Huang Ruifang (No 3) nor Lam Man Tak have any application to the case of this applicant.  There are no viable or reasonably arguable grounds of appeal against sentence and leave to appeal out of time must be refused.

16.  The applicant is advised that he has the right to renew his application for leave to appeal out of time before the Court of Appeal, but he is also warned that the Court has the power to order the loss of any time, which the applicant has spent in custody pending his appeal, if it were to come to the view that there was no justification for the renewal of the application.

[1]  Appeal Bundle (“AB”), p A268B-C.

[2]  The applicant was previously refused leave to appeal against conviction by the full Court on 5 June 2018: see HKSAR v Liu Chun Sing (Unrep., CACC 208/2016, 13 June 2018).

[3]  HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

[4]  Unit 4C.

[5]  Suspended ceiling in transcripts.

[6]  AB, pp A7-A8, at [1].

[7]  Referred to as suspended ceiling in the transcripts.

[8]   Respondent’s Submissions dated 4 February 2026, at [1].

[9]  AB, p A271 M-O.

[10]  AB, p A266 I-J.

[11]  AB, p A266 K-M.

[12]  AB, p A266 M-N.

[13]  AB, p A266 P-S.

[14]  AB, pp A266S-A267C.

[15]  HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437.

[16]  AB, p A267M-O.

[17]  AB, p A268B-C

[18]  Seabrook v HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 184.

[19]  HKSAR v Lam Man Tak [2026] 2 HKLRD 199.

[20]  HKSAR v Yim Shek Wo (Unrep., CACC 307/2017, 2 August 2021), at [51].

[21]  Lam Man Tak, at [54].