HKSAR v. LING YIP HON

HCCC 291/2025

[2026] HKCFI 840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 291 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug on 1 September this year before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

It is alleged that on the 1st day of February 2023, inside a private car YJ6803, in Yuen Long, he unlawfully trafficked in 12.5 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 12.4 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride which is commonly known as ‘Ice’.

According to the Summary of Facts which he admitted at the time of his guilty plea, at about 3.53 am on 1 February 2023, the police saw him acting furtively next to a private car of registration number YJ6803 parked near Yuen Long Pau Cheung Square in Yuen Long. He was intercepted for investigation.

Upon search, the key of the car, cash of $4,500 and a mobile phone were found inside the left front pocket of his jacket. He appeared to be nervous at the time. Upon search of the car, the police found a transparent resealable plastic bag containing all the drug particularised in the charge inside the compartment between the driver’s seat and the front passenger seat. Upon his arrest, the defendant stated under caution that the ‘Ice’ was for his own consumption.

Enquiries revealed that the estimated street value of the ‘Ice’ seized was HK$6,075.

In the subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant said the ‘Ice’ found in the car was dangerous drug for his own consumption. He said he bought the ‘Ice’ in Tuen Mun Park at $4,800 from an unknown male at 1 am on 1 February 2023. The car was owned by a friend who contacted him for having a meal in Yuen Long which he agreed. His friend picked him up in Tuen Mun at about 2.30 am. He put the ‘Ice’ inside the compartment between the driver’s seat and the front passenger seat. Then they went to the Yuen Long Pau Cheung Square for meal. After that he borrowed the car key from his friend to sort out the stuff at the car trunk during which he was intercepted and arrested by the police.

The defendant now accepts and admits that at all material times, he knowingly possessed the subject dangerous drug seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

The defendant is now 32 years of age. He was 29 years old at the time of the offence. He has attained Primary 6 school education and has never completed his Form 1 education. At the time of his arrest, he was married with his wife living in mainland China and he himself lived with his parents in Tuen Mun. He worked as a warehouse keeper for his mother’s fabric shop until the day before his arrest.

According to the record from the Criminal Records Bureau, he has six sets of criminal convictions involving a total of 14 offences including the conviction for the offence of possession of dangerous drug on 16 September 2008. At that time, he was 14 years old and was sentenced to probation order of 18 months. On 16 March 2021, when he was 27 years old, he was convicted of the offence of doing an act preparatory to trafficking in dangerous drug and was sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment. He was also convicted of some other offences that were not related to dangerous drug on that particular occasion.

Eventually he was discharged from prison in August 2022. According to the record of Criminal Records Bureau, he was discharged on 27 August, but to his own recollection he was discharged on 18 August. In any event he was only discharged from prison about five months before he was arrested for the present offence.

In mitigation, counsel Mr Bernard Yuen informed this court that in respect of this matter, he offered his timely plea of guilty and he should be entitled to the full one‑third discount for that matter. Counsel also submitted that according to the facts of this case he was only a courier or storekeeper at the lowest level of the trafficking hierarchy. Counsel urged this court to take into account that there is no aggravating feature to the starting point.

In respect of mitigation, counsel submitted a total of two mitigation letters. The first one was written by the defendant himself indicating that he was addicted to drug after he quitted his education. In order to reduce his expenses for drug addiction and also for living expenses, he also trafficked in dangerous drugs, to resell some of the drugs to his friends to obtain profit. He said that he was remorseful and he asked this court to give him a chance.

In the mother’s letter -- she was in fact also the employer of the defendant for the period from the 18th or sometime in August 2022 until 31 January 2023, the day before his arrest for the present offence. It appeared that he was at that time working as a warehouse keeper for her fabric store in Sham Shui Po and she paid him a monthly salary of about $30,000, that is about $1,000 a day. The mother said that during his employment he was loyal, responsible and worked with excellent performance.

However, in the -- in her mitigation letter, the mother also said that all along he had been the main financial income source of the family which appears to be the other case around because she was paying him all his salary and he was working for the family shop before his arrest.

In mitigation, counsel also attached for my information copy of a redacted urine test report dated 5 July 2023 showing that he was still tested positive for the consumption of ‘Ice’. That means that even about five months after his arrest for the present case, he was still consuming the drug of ‘Ice’ at that time.

In sentencing the defendant, I do bear in mind the approach and the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 as clarified by the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

According to the revised guidelines in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the starting point for trafficking in between 10 and 70 grammes of ‘Ice’ narcotic is 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment after trial. So the mathematical starting point for trafficking in 12.4 grammes of ‘Ice’ narcotic would be 7 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.

The mathematical starting point is appropriate for persons at the lower bottom of the trafficking hierarchy such as storekeepers and couriers. In this case, I accept counsel’s submission that the role of the defendant was merely that of a courier or storekeeper, so the mathematical starting point of 7 years and 1 month’s imprisonment is adopted.

I shall now come to his personal circumstances. There is nothing that could amount to an effective mitigating factor other than his early plea of guilty. But, at the same time, I also noted from his criminal record that he has two drug-related previous convictions. As I have said, at the age of 14 years he was convicted of possession of dangerous drug and at the age of 27 years, he was convicted of offering to do an act preparatory to trafficking in dangerous drug. He was only discharged from prison for that matter in August 2022, that is about five months before he engaged in the present offence.

And even after he was arrested for the present offence, five months later, from the urine test report dated 5 July saying that the collection date of the sample was 5 July 2023, he was still addicted to ‘Ice’, showing that he continued with his ‘Ice’ consumption even after his arrest for the present case.

Taking into account all those matters, I consider they would entitle me to enhance the starting point slightly for his ongoing drug-related activities or involvement. Indeed he did not show any remorse even though he was arrested for the present offence. For those matters, I would enhance the starting point by a total of 5 months, so the notional sentence I adopt after trial would be 7½ years’ imprisonment.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge at an early stage, as such he is entitled to a full one-third discount. But, other than that, I do not see anything in his personal background or in his family circumstances that would justify any meaningful discount. So after the one-third discount he is sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment, and that is the sentence that I would impose on him, 5 years.