HKSAR v. CHAN PUI KIT

HCCC 433/2024

[2025] HKCFI 3400

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 433 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 12 December 2024. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed his pleas and his agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of the charges state as follows.  Regarding Charge 1, on the 14th day of June, 2023, at Room B60, Timemini Storage, 5th Floor, Tsuen Wan Industrial Building, Nos. 59-71 Wang Lung Street, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 1,509 grammes of a solid containing 1,291 grammes of ketamine. 

3.  Charge 2, on the 14th day of June, 2023, at Room B68, Timemini Storage, 5th Floor, Tsuen Wan Industrial Building, Nos. 59-71 Wang Lung Street, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 1,887.9 grammes of a solid containing 1,461.8 grammes of ketamine, 706.4 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 705.6 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 430.4 grammes of a solid containing 318.06 grammes of ketamine, and 25.08 grammes of cocaine and 398 grammes of a solid containing 217 grammes of methamphetamine and 55.7 grammes of ketamine. 

4.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows.  On 14 June 2023, the police conducted an anti-narcotic operation at Timemini Storage, located at 5th Floor, Tsuen Wan Industrial Building, 59‑71 Wang Lung Street, Tsuen Wan (“the Storage”). 

5.  At around 11.19 pm, PW1 noticed the defendant leaving Room B60 of the Storage. The defendant was intercepted.  PW2 showed the search warrant to the defendant and told the defendant that the police was going to search B60.  A body search was conducted on the defendant.  Upon search, inter alia, a white key card with two room keys, a mobile phone, and cash of HK$21,976.5 were found inside the black bag carried by the defendant.  During enquiry, the defendant told the police that the two room keys were keys to rooms B60 and B68 of the Storage. 

6.  A search was conducted at B60.  Upon search, two black backpacks, six English books (with the centre of the pages being removed) and six transparent resealable plastic bags containing drugs (Exhibits 1 to 6) were found therein. The defendant was arrested.  Under caution, the defendant apologised and claimed that he only sold drugs as he was indebted. 

7.  In the presence of the defendant, PW1 opened the door of Room B68 with one of the keys seized from the defendant.  A search was conducted inside B68.  Upon search, dangerous drugs packed in transparent plastic bag or box (ie Exhibits 9 to 36) and the following were found:

(1) Two electronic scales;

(2) one sieve;

(3) two transparent resealable plastic bags containing large number of transparent resealable plastic bags;

(4) five pink paper bags;

(5) one black mobile phone;

(6) one carton box; and

(7) one table and one stool.

8.  The defendant was arrested for the drugs found inside Room B68.  Under caution, the defendant asked for a chance and claimed that he was forced to sell drugs as he was heavily indebted.    

9.  The key card found on the defendant was for unlocking the front door and back door of the Storage.

10.  The police has also secured the CCTV footages (between 7 June 2023 and 14 June 2023) from the Storage.  The footages showed that the defendant had entered both B60 and B68 on multiple occasions before the day of arrest, and he was alone.  The footages also showed the defendant walked back and forth between the two units at around 1.37 am on 13 June 2023, carrying some plastic trays containing suspected dangerous drugs. 

11.  The total amount of drugs involved are as follows:

(1) Drugs found at B60 (Exhibit 1 to 6), 1,509 grammes of a solid containing 1,291 grammes of ketamine; and

(2) Drugs found in B68 (Exhibit 9 to 36):

(a) 1,887.9 grammes of a solid containing 1,461.8 grammes of ketamine;

(b) 706.4 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 705.6 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as ‘Ice’);

(c) 430.4 grammes of a solid containing 318.06 grammes of ketamine and 25.08 grammes of cocaine; and

(d) 398 grammes of a solid containing 55.7 grammes of ketamine and 217 grammes of methamphetamine.

12.  The total estimated market price of all the drugs involved was HK$2,679,074. 

13.  The total narcotic contents of the dangerous drugs seized are as follows:

(1) Ketamine: 3,126.56 grammes;

(2) ‘Ice’: 922.60 grammes; and

(3) Cocaine: 25.08 grammes.

14.  The personal background of the defendant is as follows.  He is 41 years of age.  He was born in Hong Kong and he is single.  He has a clear criminal record.  The defendant received education up to secondary Form 5 level.  Since 2020, the defendant had been employed as a delivery worker for a pet shop. 

15.  Prior to his arrest, the defendant lived with his mother who is aged 72. The defendant’s mother has to take care of a younger brother, ie the defendant’s uncle, who resides in the centre for the mentally handicapped. The defendant hopes that he can finish his sentence as soon as possible so that he can resume his duties to take care of him mother and uncle.

16.  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 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”.

17.  Regarding the first step, the task is to identify the appropriate range applicable to the total quantity of drugs involved.  As the dangerous drugs the subject matter of the two charges were found on the same occasion at the same storage facility, albeit at two different rooms close to each other on the same floor, I consider it appropriate to treat all the dangerous drugs seized as one lot of drugs and to ascertain an appropriate global starting point for the same. 

18.  In HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, the guideline for a quantity of 922.6 grammes of ‘Ice’ is 19 years and 5 months as the starting point. According to the same case, the guideline for a quantity of 25.08 grammes of cocaine is 6 years and 1 month as the starting point. 

19.  Finally, as held by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Chan Ka Yiu [2018] 4 HKC 591, for trafficking in 3,000 grammes of ketamine, the starting point would be around 20 years. 

20.  As three different kinds of dangerous drugs were involved with a combined weight of 4,074.24 grammes, in order to assist me in identifying the global starting point of the offence, the “absurdity test”, “ratio test”, and “conversion test”, as explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013 (Judgment dated 8 April 2014), have been conducted with the following results: Around 22 years and 11.3 months under the absurdity test, around 21 years and 7 months under the conversion test, and around 21 years and 5.4 months under the ratio test. 

21.  Having considered the above results in the round, and taking into account that more than one type of dangerous drug is involved, I consider that the global starting point of 21 years and 7 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate in the present case.  That is purely based on the quantity and types of drugs involved, before any consideration of the defendant’s role in the offence. 

22.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that defendant was a courier or storekeeper of the drugs. 

23.  Third, in view of my aforesaid finding of the defendant’s role and culpability, I consider that 21 years and 7 months would be the appropriate global notional sentence after trial for the offences in question. 

24.  Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the global notional sentence after trial. 

25.  Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is his timely guilty plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount.  Accordingly, the global sentence to be imposed on the defendant is 14 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

26.  To achieve that global sentence, I would sentence the defendant as follows:

(1) 10 years’ imprisonment on Charge 1;

(2) 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment on Charge 2.

(3) I order that 1 year of the sentence on Charge 1 is to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 2, resulting in the total sentence of 14 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

27.  Finally, I consider  that  a  sentence  of  14 years  and  4 months’ imprisonment  is a  fair,  just,  and  balanced  sentence  in  view  of  all  the circumstances of the case and the circumstances of the defendant.