COURT: Defendant, these are my reasons for sentence.
You have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. The particulars of the offence are that on 26 May 2024, at Dundas Street near the junction of Tung On Street, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 27.5 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 27.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The facts are these. At around 12.55 am on 26 May 2024, the police set up a road block at Dundas Street near the junction of Tung On Street, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon. At about 1 am on the same day, the driver of a taxi with vehicle registration mark YH6231(“the Taxi”), namely, Mr Wan, picked up the defendant outside Nos. 2 to 6 Dundas Street. After having boarded the Taxi and taken the rear passenger seat, the defendant instructed Mr Wan to drive her to Yuen Long. Shortly afterwards, the police officer stopped the Taxi at the aforesaid road block.
At the time, the defendant was still taking the rear passenger seat in the Taxi. After the defendant had alighted from Taxi as requested by the officer who conducted a search on the person of the defendant, during which, the police found that the defendant was carrying a grey recycle bag, Exhibit 12, containing the following items:
(1) One tin foil bag containing one plastic bag containing 27.5 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 27.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, Exhibit 1.
(2) One plastic bag containing 10 plastic bags, Exhibit 2 to 11, containing:
(a) 58 cartridges containing a total of 74.38 grammes of a liquid containing Etomidate, which is a listed Part I poison, and
(b) 5 cartridges containing a total of 6.3 grammes of a liquid in which chemical substances controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, and Part I of the Poisons list of the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance, Cap 138, were not detected by general screening procedure.
Exhibits 1 to 12 were seized by the police and the government chemist subsequently examined and certified the narcotic contents of all those dangerous drugs and Part I poison.
At about 1.10 am, the police officer arrested and cautioned the defendant for trafficking in dangerous drugs and the defendant said, “I bought the drug ‘Ice’ and the ‘K Chai’ cartridges for my own consumption.”
Police officer also found from the person of the defendant cash in the sum of HK$17,095.2 and a mobile phone.
The taxi driver and the Taxi were also searched with no other drugs or suspicious items found.
At about 2.52 pm on next day, 27 May 2024, a house search was conducted at the defendant’s residence at Cheong Fat Mansion, Nos. 2 to 6, Tak Cheong Lane, Yau Ma Tei with no drugs or suspicious items found.
In a video-recorded interview, the defendant stated under caution that she had attained education level up to Secondary 3. She lived in Cheong Fat Mansion, Tak Cheong Lane, Yau Ma Tei and she was unemployed.
In May 2024, the estimated street value of all the methamphetamine hydrochloride seized was HK$15,153.
The defendant now admits and accepts that she was knowingly in possession of all the methamphetamine hydrochloride seized in the case for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
Background and Mitigation
The defendant is now 47 years old, single. She attained education up to Form 3. She was unemployed prior to her arrest but she did not seek assistance from CSSA. Her family comprises her mother, a younger sister and younger brother. Her father has passed away.
The defendant is not of clear record. She has two previous convictions of trafficking in dangerous drugs respectively in 2025(2005?) and 2014. Three convictions for possession of dangerous drugs and one conviction for possession of pipe or equipment fit and intended for smoking, injection or inhalation of dangerous drugs. She has served her last sentence at Lo Wu Correctional Institution from which she was released in early 2016.
In mitigation, counsel for the defendant informed me that the defendant is a caring and perseverant person. She is the primary breadwinner of the family and have been responsible for caring for her critically ill father prior to his passing including meeting his medical expenses. She continues to bear responsibility for her siblings, both of whom have been diagnosed with severe mental and psychological conditions and require ongoing medication. Counsel submitted that the present offence was committed against this background as well as the economic pressure faced by the defendant.
Counsel further emphasised the defendant’s timely guilty plea and her expression of remorse. Reliance is also placed on the records showing the defendant’s donations to various non-governmental organisations dating back to 2020, as well as certificate of attainment in food and hygiene obtained in 2024.
Letters in mitigation from the defendant, her mother, her brother and sister have been placed before and hence considered by this court.
Sentencing Considerations
I have considered the approach to sentencing those that trafficked in dangerous drugs with the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the most recent authority, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, I now consider the six-steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.
First step, identifying the relevant guideline band
The relevant guideline for trafficking methamphetamine is set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, the starting point for trafficking in methamphetamine between 10 to 70 grammes is 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment. The quantity involved in the present case is 27.2 grammes of methamphetamine. On a mathematical basis, this quantity attracts a notional starting point of 8 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.
Second step, the defendant’s role and culpability
I have considered the evidence and there is no real evidence to suggest the defendant was anything more than a storekeeper and/or a courier. As held by the Court of Appeal in Herry Jane Yusuph, the guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs are for the least culpable of the drug traffickers, namely, the courier or storekeeper. As such, there is no enhancement in respect of the defendant’s role.
Third step, placement within the guideline band
Considering the overall role and culpability of the defendant, I find that a starting point of 8 years and 1 month’s imprisonment is appropriate.
Fourth step, aggravating factor
Counsel accepted that the defendant’s previous convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs constitute an aggravating factor, but urged the court to exercise leniency on the basis that her most recent trafficking conviction was approximately 11 years ago, in 2014.
On this point, I am reluctant to but eventually agree with counsel. A point that works in the defendant’s favour is that the last trafficking conviction predated the present offence by a substantial period of time. Further, the two trafficking convictions were themselves some distance apart, having occurred in 2005 and 2014 respectively, rather than in close succession.
Also, I accept the reasons for committing the present offences as submitted by counsel. The fact that she had refrained from transgressing the law since her last release in early 2016 shows that she did turn a new leaf, but ceased at the time of the present incident. The fact that she made regular donations to various organisations since around 2020, just prior to her arrest, and her obtaining of a certificate in 2024 also militates against the suggestion of her being a classic repeated offender.
In these circumstances, which are unique to this defendant and exceptional in nature, I reluctantly give the defendant one last chance, and will not impose any enhancement.
Fifth step, mitigating factors
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity for which she is entitled to the full one-third reduction. The defendant does not raise any issue about self-consumption. This court also finds that there is no evidence to substantiate any claim for self-consumption. As for the personal and family circumstances of the defendant, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that they carried little weight in serious drug trafficking cases.
As mentioned, the defendant made numerous and regular donations. She did so even during the time when she was responsible for taking care of her family members. Hence, I will exercise my discretion to reduce the sentence by a further 1 month.
Sixth step, totality and overall fairness
After the deduction as stated, the final sentence is 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. I have stood back and considered the sentence as a whole. The sentence is undoubtedly severe. However, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, I am satisfied that the sentence is fair, just and balanced to the offence as well as to the defendant.
Defendant, you are sentenced to a total of 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment for this offence.