HKSAR v. POON HIU FEI AND ANOTHER

HCCC 352/2024

Related to HCCC 351/2024

[2026] HKCFI 4416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 352 OF 2024

-----------------

------------------

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 351 OF 2024

------------------

------------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: Now, the following is the reasons for sentence for case number 352 of 2024. These reasons for sentence is originally aimed to deal with both HCCC 351 and 352/2024, but the 2nd defendant, who is the defendant in HCCC 351/2024, has written a letter to the court indicating his allegations against his counsel and also the possible reversal of plea, and I have adjourned the matter for counsel to clarify the same and to hear submission of the 2nd defendant himself, if appropriate. And because of that, the following reasons for sentence applied only to the 1st and 3rd defendants, who are the 1st and 2nd defendants in the case of HCCC 352/2024.

Now, the 1st defendant, Mr Poon Hiu-fei, pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs and one count of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs. The 3rd defendant, Mr Cheung Pak-yu, pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

On the 21 July 2021, the police performed an anti-narcotics operation in the vicinity of Choi Ying Estate of Ngau Tau Kok. At around 1522, a light goods vehicle stopped outside Ying Hong House, and the 1st defendant approached the vehicle and received a carton box from the driver of the vehicle.

(Submissions re amendment of indictment)

COURT: The police intercepted the 1st defendant outside Ying Hong House and upon search of the carton box, ten packets containing a total of 2.49 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 2.39 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’ were found. Under caution, the 1st defendant said he helped a person to deliver the dangerous drugs for $250 per packet. The 1st defendant revealed that he was residing at Flat 1102 of Ying Hong House, and he was brought to the unit for investigation.

Upon search of the unit, a suitcase was found in the 1st defendant’s bedroom, and inside the suitcase, three plastic bags of drugs were found, together with paraphernalia, including two electronic scales, two sealers, transparent resealable plastic bags, and a CCTV camera. The total quantity of drugs contained in the three plastic bags

amounts to 562.8 grammes of a solid, containing 544.5 grammes of ‘Ice’. Under caution, the 1st defendant said he received money for helping the person to deliver the dangerous drugs found.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the 1st defendant said he borrowed money from a person named “Man Sun”, and as he was unable to repay the debt, he agreed to help Man Sun to traffic in dangerous drugs to set off his debt. The practice was that Man Sun would call the 1st defendant in the morning and told him to receive drugs on the same day, then a middleman would contact the 1st defendant to arrange for sending the drugs to the 1st defendant by delivery service.

Between March 2021 until the date of his arrest, he helped Man Sun to collect and deliver drugs for nine times, and in each time, he would bring the drugs to his place and unpack and weigh the drugs. He would send photos or videos of the drugs to Man Sun, and Man Sun would provide the customer’s contact numbers to him for deliveries. The three bags of drugs found in the 1st defendant’s place on the date of his arrest were pending delivery.

Upon examinations on the 1st defendant’s mobile phone, evidence was found on the 1st defendant’s drug trafficking activities with Man Sun, and also the involvement of the 2nd defendant as the middleman for the trafficking of drugs on the 21 July 2021.

On the 21 July 2021, the police also conducted an anti‑narcotics operation at a flat on the 22nd Floor of Dawning Views, Fanling. Upon seeing the 3rd defendant leaving the relevant flat, the police intercepted him and gained entry to the flat using the 3rd defendant’s keys.

And in parallel, on the same day on the 21 July, the 2nd defendant was located and arrested at Room 904 of IW Hotel in Kwun Tong. With the 2nd defendant’s consent, his mobile phone was examined by the police and records of messages were found showing the 2nd defendant arranging the drugs to be sent to the 1st defendant by delivery service.

Going back to the 3rd defendant, upon body search on the 3rd defendant, one plastic bag containing 26.3 grammes of a solid containing 26.3 grammes of ‘Ice’ were found. Under caution, the 3rd defendant said a person named “Shek Gor” told him to deliver drugs to others.

Upon search of the flat, the following items of drugs were found inside the bedroom, namely, 17 plastic bags containing a total of 4,315.85 grammes of a solid containing 4,273.25

grammes of ‘Ice’; 5 packets containing a total of 5 kilogrammes of a solid containing 4.287 kilogrammes of cocaine, 12 plastic bags containing a total of 38.91 grammes of a solid containing 32.61 grammes of ketamine. Paraphernalia were found including 7 carton boxes, 22 pairs of rain boots, a box of gloves, 2 vacuum sealers, resealable plastic bags and 5 electronic scales.

Upon examination of the 3rd defendant’s mobile phone, records of messages with the 2nd defendant were found which indicated the involvement of the 2nd defendant in trafficking the drug seized from the 3rd defendant’s body and the relevant flat.

On or about the 21 July 2026, the police conducted numerous searches at different locations and dangerous drugs were found in six locations. The addresses and/or passcodes of door locks of the six locations were mentioned in the telegram message exchanges in the 2nd defendant’s phone with a person named Dong Dong between the 1 June and 21 July 2021.

As submitted by counsel for the defendants, in considering the appropriate sentence for trafficking in cocaine, in considering the appropriate sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs, this court should adopt the six steps approach set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. And for consideration of the appropriate starting point for sentence in respect of the quantities of drugs trafficked, for the drugs of ‘Ice’ and cocaine, this court should follow the guidelines laid down in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138. And for ketamine, the guidelines in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, CAAR 7/2006, and also the case of HKSAR v Choi Tsz Fung [2025] HKCA 733.

Besides, as there are different kinds of drugs involved in this case, the Court of Appeal judgment in HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885 should be considered and followed.

For the conspiracy charges, the quantity of drugs involved in the conspiracy is not specified. In HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing [2017] 5 HKLRD 799, the Court of Appeal stated that in this kind of situation, the sentencing court will have to do its best to arrive at a starting point based on inferences and assumptions derived from the facts in the case. And if such inferences or assumptions are not clear-cut ones, they will inevitably lean in favour of the defence.

The 1st defendant was 26 years old at the time of the offence and is now 31. He has no previous conviction. He received education in Hong Kong and after completion of

Form 6, he took a higher diploma course in engineering at the Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education. From 2014 onwards, he worked as a sushi chef in Japanese restaurants.

In mitigation, Ms Chan, counsel for the 1st defendant, submitted that the 1st defendant developed a habit of gambling since 2019 and started to borrow money from finance companies and others, including Man Sun. As at March 2021, he still owed Man Sun $40,000 and Man Sun coerced him to traffic drugs for him to pay the debt for $250 each bag he delivered. Ms Chan submitted that the 1st defendant is now very remorseful. He has been very thankful to his father for his support to him all along and to show his repentance. He enrolled with the Hong Kong Metropolitan University for a degree course in Business Administration and is expecting to get the degree in 2028 or 2029. He also took some short courses including interior design and also performed voluntary work in the carpentry section of the Correctional Services Department. The 1st defendant himself has written a letter to the court reiterating his remorse.

The 3rd defendant was 19 years old at the time of the offence and he is now 24. He has a clear record. After finishing Form 4, he pursued a diploma course in fitness and sports at the Vocational Training Council. But in order to please his mother, he quitted after one year and studied Form 5 and Form 6 in an evening school while taking up two part-time jobs during daytime. He has worked as a bartender, waiter and chef. However, due to the pandemic and economic downturn, he lost his job and at the time of the offence, he was out of job for six months and as his mother has only minimal income, they could barely make ends meet.

Ms Wu, counsel for the 3rd defendant, submitted that the 3rd defendant committed the offence out of immaturity and desperation. He worried about his mother and as they have a very close bonding and he wanted to earn quick money to support his family to ease her mother’s burden. Ms Wu submitted that the 3rd defendant is now very remorseful and determined to turn anew. He has taken different courses during remand and intended to take more vocational training to better equip himself in order to be able to get a job after release. The 3rd defendant and his mother have written letters to the court asking for the court’s leniency.

Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence. People convicted of the offence will inevitably be imposed a long term of imprisonment for the purpose of general deterrence. The length of the sentence depends mainly on the quantity of drugs involved and factors like personal or financial circumstances will not normally be taken into account when the court considers the appropriate sentence.

In the present case, counsel for the defendants have helpfully suggested the range of appropriate sentences in respect of the different charges faced by the respective defendants by applying the relevant legal authorities outlined above. In my judgment, a global approach should be adopted for consideration of the appropriate sentences for the charges faced by each defendant.

For the 1st defendant, the quantity of ‘Ice’ involved in Charge 1 is 2.39 kilogrammes and for Charge 2 is 544.5 grammes. As submitted by Ms Chan, the respective starting point according to the tariff should be 21 years and 17 years 5 months’ imprisonment respectively.

For the conspiracy charge, I agree with the method of calculation suggested by Ms Chan that, as the 1st defendant stated that he had assisted Man Sun to traffic drugs for a total of ten times during the conspiracy period, including the occasions under Charges 1 and 2, the overall quantity should be roughly 250 grammes times 9 plus the quantity involved in Charges 1 and 2. Taking into account the purity of the drugs as reflected by the drugs seized on 21 July. In the circumstances, I agree with Ms Chan that the overall sentence for all charges should be 28 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. Although the role of the 1st defendant is more than a mere courier, I am not minded to enhance the sentence in view of the already substantial sentence the 1st defendant will receive.

For the 1st defendant, for Count 1, a starting point of 21 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate. For Count 2, 17 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. For Count 3, 28 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. And the sentences of all charges should run concurrently.

For the 3rd defendant, using the combined approach as submitted by Ms Wu, the appropriate starting point should be 25 years’ imprisonment. Equally, I am not prepared to enhance the 3rd defendant’s sentence for his role as the sentence is already a substantial one.

For the 3rd defendant, the proper starting point for Count 1 would be 8 years’ imprisonment and for Count 2, 25 years’ imprisonment. And the sentences should run concurrently.

Apart from the guilty pleas, I do not see any other valid mitigating factors. And as the 1st and 3rd defendants have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, they will receive the full one-third discount.

The 1st defendant’s sentence is therefore adjusted from 28 years and 4 months’ imprisonment to 18 years and 8

months’ imprisonment. And the 3rd defendant’s sentence would be adjusted from 25 years’ imprisonment to 16 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.