HKSAR v. WONG JUN HEI IVAN

HCCC 111/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 111 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs[1] before Magistrate Ms. Minnie Wat, admitted to the summary of facts and was committed, on 30^th December 2024, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. He confirmed his plea and admissions before me and the conviction was duly recorded.

2.  Particulars of the charge are that he on 7^th November, 2023, at Room 1620, 16^th Floor, Fung Lai House, Yau Lai Estate, Yau Tong, Kowloon, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 1,702.57 grammes of a solid containing 1,422.77 grammes of ketamine; 57.76 grammes of a solid containing 53.91 grammes of cocaine; and 1.33 grammes of a solid containing 0.08 gramme of cocaine and 0.91 gramme of ketamine.

FACTS

3.  The defendant, together with friends and family he was with, were intercepted by police officers who were conducting an anti-narcotics operation at Fung Lai House at around 4:27pm on the charge date when they were seen leaving the building.

4.  Nothing suspicious was found on any of them.  They were brought back to the defendant’s residence at Room 1620 of Fung Lai House.  The search warrant issued against the unit was executed, and the police gained entry with the key found on the defendant.  

5.  Upon search of the unit, the following items were found inside one of the bedrooms:

(a)  42 plastic bags containing a total of 1,702.57 grammes of a solid containing 1,422.77 grammes of ketamine;

(b)  3 plastic bags containing a total of 57.6 grammes of a solid containing 53.8 grammes of cocaine;

(c)  2 digital balances containing a total of 0.34 grammes of a solid containing traces of cocaine and 0.26 grammes of ketamine;

(d)  2 plastic spoons containing a total of 0.11 grammes of a solid containing traces of cocaine and ketamine;

(e)  one plastic tray containing 0.06 grammes of a solid containing traces of cocaine and ketamine; and

(f)  some transparent resealable plastic bags.

6.  With the assistance of the Police Dog Unit, the following were found on top of a cabinet on the computer desk in the living room:

(g)  4 small plastic bags containing a total of 1.33 grammes of a solid containing 0.08 grammes of cocaine and 0.91 grammes of ketamine; and

(h)  1 small plastic bag containing 0.16 grammes of a solid containing 0.11 grammes of cocaine.

7.  The defendant was arrested and claimed under caution that all the drugs found in the unit belonged to him, and that his friends and family had nothing to do with them.

8.  In the subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant added that he was the registered tenant of the unit, his mother and younger sister lived in the unit and each had a key, but they seldom entered the defendant’s bedroom and so had no knowledge of the drugs inside.

9.  The defendant claimed that it was a male ‘Chi Kit’ who suggested for him to earn some quick money by packaging dangerous drugs.  The defendant agreed to do so and gave his phone number to ‘Chi Kit’.  

10.  Later on someone called the defendant and told him to pick up some dangerous drugs from a vehicle at Yau Tong Lane, which he did, and then immediately brought them home and repacked them into smaller packets there.  He was instructed to put the smaller packets of drugs at different locations, such as staircases and fire hose cabinets.

11.  The 5 smaller packets of ketamine found in the living room were trial samples.  The digital scales and spoons were for repacking the drugs.

12.  The defendant claimed to have trafficked in drugs that way for a month and was earning $20,000 per month, which he received by way of bank transfers.  That was the third time that he had repacked dangerous drugs.

13.  The estimated street value of the ketamine and cocaine was, respectively, $1,058,999 and $76,879, making a total of $1,135,878.  

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

14.  The defendant is of previously clear record.  

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

15.  The defendant was born in September 2002 and is 22 years old.  He was 21 when he committed the offence.  The defendant was raised by his mother in a single parent household, and they were living together with his younger sister.  The defendant was educated up to Form 6 level and was unemployed at the time of his arrest.  

16.  Ms. Emma Tsang, counsel for the defendant, submitted that the Defendant has reflected on his actions during his period in custody.  He has learned his lesson and vows to lead a law-abiding life after he has served his sentence.  He is striving to make full use of his time in prison by enrolling in various courses, so that he can positively contribute to society when he is released.

SENTENCING

17.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for trafficking in dangerous drugs is that of life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

18.  The sentencing approach and tariff bands as set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, and HKSAR v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 are applied as follows.  

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff bands

19.  For the 1423.68g of ketamine, and 53.99g of cocaine, the applicable guideline tariff bands are, respectively, “14 to 18 years”, and “8 to 12 years”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

20.  The defendant had admitted to the packaging of the dangerous drugs, but there is no evidence that he was involved in the direct dissemination of the drugs on the street.  Be that as it may, given the circumstances of the case and of the defendant, I will exercise my discretion and sentence him on the basis of him being a courier and storekeeper.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

21.  Since 2 different types of dangerous drugs were trafficked, I adopt the combined approach as propounded in HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin [2004] 3 HKC 367.  I have applied the absurdity, conversion and ratio tests as used in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong CACC 318/2013 to assist me in arriving at the correct starting point.  

ABSURDITY TEST

22.  On the basis of all 1,477.67g of narcotics were the more potent drug of cocaine, any combined starting point above 19 years 10 months would be regarded as absurdly high.

CONVERSION TEST

23.  If the ketamine is converted into a quantity of cocaine that would yield the equivalent sentence, the total converted quantity of cocaine would be 531.09g, which would have a notional starting point of 16 years 1 month.

RATIO TEST

24.  Based on the proportion of the different drugs involved, the sentence should be about 16 years.

THE COMBINED NOTIONAL STARTING POINT

25.  Having regard to the above test results, taking into consideration the defendant’s role and culpability as a storekeeper, I will adopt a combined starting point of 16 years 1 months’ imprisonment.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

26.  The defendant trafficked in 2 different types of drugs and it is trite law that trafficking in more than one variety of dangerous drugs is an aggravating factor, because the trafficker will be able to cater to a wider market[2]. Given the quantity involved, I will enhance the sentence by 5 months, taking the combined starting point to 16 years 6 months.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

27.  The defendant had provided information to the police but they are found to have been of no practical use.  As to the defendant’s age, he was not so young as to fall into the extreme youth category.  As to the defendant’s clear record, it is well established that in serious trafficking cases, any discount for a clear record would be subsumed in the 1/3 guilty plea discount.  As such, the only mitigating factor is the defendant’s timely guilty plea.  

Step 6: Totality

28.  Taking a step back, I find the sentence fair, just and balanced.

FINAL SENTENCE

29.  The final sentence is, therefore, 11 years’ imprisonment after plea.