HKSAR v. WANG CHI PAN JOE

HCCC 266/2025

[2025] HKCFI 6214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 266 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate for two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He is now committed for sentence.

On 2 March 2023, at around 1.15 in the afternoon, the defendant was intercepted by the police when he was leaving the lobby of Hotel Dorsette in Tsuen Wan.

Upon search, a carton box was found inside a black garbage bag the defendant was carrying, which contained a number of plastic bags containing in total 780.6 grammes of a solid containing 484.78 grammes of ketamine. He had also with him a key card of Room 1927 of the hotel, a car key, cash of HK$53,291, and four mobile phones.

Under caution, the defendant said he was about to put the ketamine into his car and sell them in other places. The defendant was then escorted to Room 1927. Upon search, some paraphernalia including a scale, a tube, and transparent resealable plastic bags were found inside a recycled bag on the bed.

The defendant was then escorted to his car with registration number CA6688, which was parked at the carpark of the hotel. Upon search of the car, three resealable plastic bags containing a total of 1.05 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 867 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

Under caution, the defendant said he put the three bricks of heroin into his vehicle and planned to sell them later.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant said, among other things, that he was planning to sell the ketamine at the material time, but has yet confirmed the location. His boss, “Ah Gwai”, purchased the car for him at HK$68,000 on 28 February 2023, and when he picked up the car, Ah Gwai had already put the drugs into the car. Ah Gwai told him to sell all the drugs and then return the payment received to him afterwards.

The defendant repacked the ketamine on the morning of the day of his arrest. He purchased a scale for weighing the ketamine and dividing them into smaller portions to put into the resealable bags. He planned to sell the ketamine and heroin together, and Ah Gwai would reward him for 1,000 to 2,000 per brick of heroin trafficked.

The estimated street value of all the drugs involved is in total HK$1,166,961.

The defendant is now 49 years old. He was educated up to Form 3 level. He has a son with his girlfriend who was born after the offence in September 2023. He was unemployed at the time of the offence. He has 12 previous convictions, of which eight were dangerous drugs related, and three of them were trafficking in dangerous drugs. The three convictions of trafficking in dangerous drugs were sentenced on the same date on 30 August 2017, where he was sentenced to a total of 9 years’ imprisonment. He was released from prison on 30 October 2021. In other words, he committed the present offence less than 1½years from his release.

In consideration of sentence, this court should apply the six-step approach set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and follow the guidelines set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKRLD 138, and Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKRLD 1.

This is a case involving two different kinds of drugs, although in different charges. As submitted by Ms Lai, counsel for the defendant, in deciding the appropriate overall starting point based on the quantities of drugs, this court will have to choose between the individual approach and the combined approach, and countercheck the outcome with the absurdity test, the conversion test, and the ratio test. Ms Lai has helpfully set out in her written submission a detailed calculation and the results in applying different tests using the relevant sentencing guidelines.

I will not set out in detail the results arrived at by Ms Lai. Based on the results, Ms Lai submitted that the combined approach should be adopted, and the appropriate overall starting point shall be in the region of 18 years and 1 month, using the conversion test with heroin as the base drug assuming that the defendant has a role of mere courier or storekeeper.

For Charge 1, the quantity of ketamine involved is 484.78 grammes, which falls under the band of 300 to 600 grammes in Hii Siew Cheng, and the corresponding starting point is in the range of 9 to 12 years’ imprisonment. The arithmetic calculation of the starting point with the quantity of 484.78 grammes is 10 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

For Charge 2, applying the guideline under Huang Ruifang, 867 grammes of heroin falls under the band of 500 to 1,500 grammes, and the corresponding starting point is in the range of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment. The arithmetic calculation of the starting point with the quantity of 867 grammes is 17 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

Regarding the role of the defendant, I am not convinced that the defendant can be regarded as a mere courier or storekeeper. A car was provided for his use for trafficking and he was tasked to sell the drugs, not merely deliver the drugs. He purchased tools to repack the drugs for distribution and his reward is based on the quantity of drugs he sold. The defendant is obviously more than a mere courier or storekeeper, and is more akin to the role of a distributor. The appropriate starting point should therefore be adjusted upward.

Furthermore, there are two aggravating factors in the present case. Firstly, two different kinds of drugs are involved, and they will allow a wider market for selling. Secondly, the defendant has three previous trafficking in dangerous drugs convictions and he committed the present offence only 1½ years after he was released from prison.

For the role of the defendant, I would adjust the overall starting point upward for 6 months. For the two aggravating factors I identified, I would enhance the sentence for 2 months for the first factor and 3 months for the second, that is, an enhancement of 5 months’ imprisonment.

The appropriate overall starting point, adopting the one suggested by Ms Lai with the aforesaid adjustment, should therefore be 19 years’ imprisonment. I can see no valid mitigating factor apart from the defendant’s guilty plea. Given the full one-third discount, the overall sentence should be reduced to 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. In my judgement, this is an appropriate and proportionate sentence considering the facts of this matter and also the defendant’s culpability as a whole.

In the circumstances, for Charge 1, I adopt a starting point of 11 years and 6 months, and for Charge 2, I adopt a starting point of 18 years and 3 months. For Charge 1, the sentence is reduced to 7 years and 8 months, for Charge 2, the sentence is reduced to 12 years and 1 month.

Considering the totality of sentence, I order that 7 months of Charge 1 be served consecutively to Charge 2, and the rest of the sentences be served concurrently. The total sentence is therefore 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

(Discussion re totality of sentence)

COURT: The final order should be 6 months of Charge 1 be served consecutively to Charge 2, making the overall 12 years and 8 months.