HKSAR v. KONG CHUEN IP

HCCC 175/2025

[2025] HKCFI 3894

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 175 OF 2025

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

The Charge

1.  On 12 May 2025, the defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The charge involved 99.247 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 99.237 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“ICE”).  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 2 May 2025 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 charge and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

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

3.  On 31 January 2023, the defendant was seen by police officers to be coming out from Shop 4B on the Ground Floor of Laguna Arcade in Lam Tin (“the Shop”).  The defendant was intercepted and a key to the Shop was found on him.  With his key, police officers entered the Shop and upon search, they found a total of 100 tinfoil packets in 5 plastic boxes inside the Shop.  The 100 packets were later found to contain the subject dangerous drugs as per the trafficking charge.

4.  The defendant was arrested and under verbal caution, he admitted that the packets were 100 kilogrammes of ICE given to him by “Ah Yau” for his safekeeping pending distribution and he would be given $100,000 as a reward afterwards for settling his debt.

5.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant further admitted under caution:

(1) On 24 December 2022, he came to know “Ah Yau” at a bar and he told “Ah Yau” that he had a debt of about $200,000. “Ah Yau” asked him to store and distribute ICE at a reward of $100,000 and he accepted the offer.

(2) On 8 January 2023, he received a call and was instructed to pick up 2 cartons boxes containing 5 bags of dangerous drugs which were placed by the roadside in Lam Tin. He then brought a trolley and 5 plastic boxes to pick up the dangerous drugs and brought them back to the Shop. Upon opening the packets, he saw the crystalline solids inside and knew that it was ICE.

(3) On the material day, he was at the Shop and was about to go for lunch when police officers intercepted him. They took him back to the Shop where the ICE was kept.

(4) He had not yet distributed any of the ICE and had not yet received any reward from “Ah Yau”.

6.  The estimated prevailing street value of the ICE seized was $62,525,610.

7.  In the Summary of Facts, the defendant also admitted that at the material time, he unlawfully possessed all the dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

Background and Mitigation

8.  The defendant is 24 years old and single.  He was born in Mainland China in 2000 and migrated to Hong Kong in 2010.  He was educated here up to Form 2 level.  He resided with his parents and younger sister in a public housing estate in Lam Tin.  Before his arrest, the defendant was a casual delivery worker, earning about $15,000 per month.

9.  The defendant has three previous convictions all entered on 25 May 2016, two for wounding with intent and one for theft.  He was sentenced to a rehabilitation centre for those convictions.  He has no drug‑related records.

10.  His counsel, Ms Cindy Kong, informed the Court that the defendant is remorseful for the offence.  He deeply regrets his misguided actions and pleads for a most lenient sentence.  Ms Kong also submitted to the Court four letters written by the defendant’s parents, his younger sister and his uncle respectively in mitigation.  They all spoke of the defendant being a filial and good son, of him having been misled by bad elements into committing the offence, and of his deep remorse.  They all pleaded for the Court’s leniency.

Sentence

11.  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.

12.  The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question.  In the present case, the quantity of ICE involved was very large, namely 99.237 kilgrammes, with an estimated street value of some $62.5 million.  According to HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 at §66, a quantity of ICE between 15 kilogrammes and 30 kilogrammes would attract a starting point between 27 and 30 years’ imprisonment.  For a quantity above 30 kilogrammes, the sentence will fall within the discretion of the Court, bearing in mind the realistic upper limit of 35 years’ imprisonment as stated in HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777 at §26.  Given the sheer enormity of the quantity of dangerous drugs involved, the Court will adopt a starting point of 33 years’ imprisonment for sentencing the present offence.  

13.  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 defendant was recruited by “Ah Yau” to store the dangerous drugs pending distribution for a reward.

14.  The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band the defendant should come.  In my assessment, the defendant’s role was that of a store-keeper cum courier.

15.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  As none of his previous convictions was related to dangerous drugs, I shall disregard them.

16.  The fifth step is to take into account the mitigating factors, if any.  As accepted by Ms Kong, given the seriousness of the trafficking offence, the only strong 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 33 years’ imprisonment to 22 years’ imprisonment. 

17.  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 22 years.

Exhibits

18.  An Order in terms of the Prosecution’s application (amended), not objected to by the Defence, was granted to dispose the exhibits.