HKSAR v. WONG LIK HANG

HCCC 286/2024

[2025] HKCFI 1924

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 286 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

The Charge

1.  On 2 September 2024, the defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The count involved 1,299 grammes of a solid containing 1,204 grammes of cocaine, and 20.4 grammes of a solid containing 17.1 grammes of ketamine.  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 13 May 2024 and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed his guilty plea to the trafficking count and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.  The facts of the case can be summarized as follows. 

3.  On 25 April 2023, the defendant was intercepted by Customs officers when he was returning to the flat where he lived.  Upon entry to the flat with his keys, Customs officers conducted a search inside the flat and the subject dangerous drugs contained in a total of 71 resealable plastic bags, together with an electronic scale, were found inside a wardrobe in the flat.  Upon arrest and under verbal caution, the defendant admitted knowing that the drugs were cocaine and ketamine, that they were delivered to him by a vehicle as arranged by his friend, that he would wait for his friend’s instructions for delivery of the drugs to another vehicle for the purpose of sale, and that he would be rewarded $100 for every delivery of 24 grammes of the dangerous drugs.

4.  The estimated street value of all the dangerous drugs seized was HK$1,429,483.

Background and Mitigation

5.  The defendant was 24 years old at the time of the offence and he is now 26 years old.  He has received up to Form 1 education and is single.  At the time of the offence, he was unemployed and he lived with his parents in a public estate.  He has a clear record. 

6.  Through his counsel, the defendant has submitted one letter to the Court in mitigation.  It was written by the defendant’s parents, confirming their support for the defendant despite his transgression of the law and expressing their hope that the defendant will be rehabilitated after serving his sentence.

7.  As to the sentence for the offence involving two types of dangerous drugs, Mr. Mak Kin Ming, counsel for the defendant, submitted that the Court should undertake a combined approach to sentencing and adopt the ratio test.  He also submitted that the role of the defendant was no more than that of a courier cum storekeeper.  He further invited the Court to take the view that given the cocktail of drugs, an enhancement of no more than three to six months should be applied in the present case.  He accepted that given the seriousness of the trafficking offence, other than the guilty plea, the defendant can raise no strong mitigating factor.  As this is the defendant’s first conviction, he asked for a lenient sentence to be imposed on the defendant.

Sentence

8.  In sentencing the defendant, I will follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

9.  The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantities of the dangerous drugs in question.  In the present case, there are two types of drugs being involved, namely cocaine and ketamine, with cocaine being of the larger quantity.  When more than one type of dangerous drugs are involved in a trafficking offence, the court will adopt a combined approach in sentencing. As explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013, there are three means of cross-checking whether a sentence is manifestly inadequate, namely, the absurdity test, the conversion test and the ratio test. 

10.  In the circumstances of this case, the starting points that are produced by applying the different tests are not very much different and as invited by Mr. Mak, I am prepared to use the lowest starting point calculated by reference to the ratio test for the present case, and as now confirmed by Mr. Mak, it works out to be around 18 years and 9 months.  That is also confirmed by Ms Angela Wong, counsel acting for the prosecution.

11.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court.  In short, the dangerous drugs were collected and stored by the defendant at the flat where he lived, pending instructions from his friend to deliver the drugs to others for rewards.

12.  The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band the defendant should come.  In my assessment, the defendant’s role is no more than that of a courier cum storekeeper. 

13.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  It is an aggravating factor for an accused to traffic in more than one kind of dangerous drugs “because in such a situation the trafficker is able to cater to a far wider market than the trafficker in only one kind of drug.” (See HKSAR v Yim Hung Lui Ricky, CACC 266/2011, and HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644). For this reason, I will enhance the starting point of 18 years and 9 months by 3 months, taking it to 19 years’ imprisonment.

14.  The fifth step is to take into account the mitigating factors, if any.  As accepted by Mr. Mak, given the seriousness of the trafficking offence, the only mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is his guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the sentence down from 19 years to 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. 

15.  Lastly, I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years and 8 months.

Exhibits

16.  Order in terms of the Prosecution’s application, not objected to by the Defence, was granted.