On 6 July 2023, at around 5.37 in the afternoon, the defendant was intercepted by the police at the staircases on the 1st Floor, No. 51 Tsui Fung Street, Wong Tai Sin. Upon search, packs of drugs were found carried by the defendant. They contained a total of 116.56 grammes of a mixture containing 96.2 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 105.68 grammes of a mixture containing 37.9 grammes of methamphetamine.
The residence of the defendant at the same building was searched, where three bricks and three packs of heroin and three packs of ‘Ice’ were found. The drugs found were respectively 1,110.8 grammes of a mixture containing 902.1 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 66.2 grammes of a mixture containing 17.74 grammes of methamphetamine. Some paraphernalia including electronic scales, plastic spoon, plastic bowl, metal sieve, and resealable plastic bags were also found.
Under caution, the defendant said since he has no money, he kept the ‘Ice’ and bricks of heroin to make money. In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant said the drugs belonged to him for trafficking. He rented the subject unit since June 2023, and he was the only one living there. He met an unknown male at a bar one week earlier, and he invited him to traffic in dangerous drugs for rewards. He has no means to contact that male.
The estimated street value of the drugs seized in this case is HK$908,625.
The defendant is now 29 years old. He is married with a 4-year-old son. He has one previous record of trafficking in dangerous drugs in Macau in 2015. According to Mr Yu, counsel for the defendant, at that time the defendant was a junket operator for a casino and he was asked by customers to provide drugs.
According to Mr Yu, the defendant lost his job two months before the offence, and he was in financial difficulties while he needed to support his family. He was promised by the male met in the bar that he could get $10,000 for trafficking in each kilogramme of drugs.
In consideration of sentence, this court has to adopt the six-steps 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 HKLRD 138.
The present case involved two different kinds of drugs. As submitted by Mr Yu, in deciding the appropriate starting point based on the quantities of drugs, the court has to countercheck with the absurdity test, the conversion test, and the ratio test.
Mr Yu has helpfully set out in his written submission of the results of applying different tests in this case, using the guidelines laid down in Huang Ruifang. I will not repeat in detail the results arrived at by Mr Yu. It is sufficient to say that the range for sentencing for Charge 1 is 10 years 8 months to 12 years 1 month, and for Charge 2, 17 years 4 months to 18 years 8 months. And the overall sentence from 18 years 1 month to 19 years.
Regarding the role of the defendant, I am unable to accept that the defendant is a mere courier or storekeeper. In that, the defendant has rented the unit for drug trafficking and he prepared and packed drugs in the premises. He also received commissions based on the quantities he trafficked. Having said that, however, I am of the view that he is neither in a core position for drug trafficking.
In the circumstances, taking into account the role of the defendant and the quantities involved, for Charge 1, I adopt a starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment and for Charge 2, a starting point of 18 years’ imprisonment.
Although the defendant has a previous similar conviction, it is committed not in Hong Kong and I do not have sufficient information of the offence. I am not minded to enhance the sentence because of it and I see no other aggravating factors.
On the other hand, apart from the defendant’s guilty plea, there is another mitigating factor in that the defendant has been trying his best to cooperate with the police. For Charge 1, the sentence is reduced to 7 years and 4 months for the defendant’s guilty plea. For Charge 2, the sentence is reduced to 12 years for his guilty plea.
For overall sentence, I order that 4 months of Charge 1 be run consecutively to Charge 2 and the rest of the sentences be served concurrently, totalling 12 years and 4 months. And as mentioned, for the mitigating factor, I will give a further reduction of 4 months to the overall sentence, and the defendant is therefore sentenced in total for 12 years’ imprisonment.