HKSAR v. TSOY YIU YEUNG

HCCC 108/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 108 OF 2026

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to 1 count of trafficking in a dangerous drug[1] and was committed, on 12 March 2026, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The defendant confirmed his plea and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and his conviction was duly recorded.

2.  Particulars of the Charge are that the defendant, on 4 May 2024, at Room 1216 (“the Room”), Hotel COZi Wetland (“the Hotel”), No. 8 Tin Sau Road, Tin Shui Wai, New Territories, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 3.96 kg of a mixture containing 3.25 kg of heroin hydrochloride.

FACTS

3.  The facts admitted can be summarized as follows.

4.  On 4 May 2024, police officer saw the Defendant entering Tin Shui Wai Parking Site, Tsui Sing Road, Ping Shan and walking towards a private car.  He was intercepted and was cautioned for trafficking in a dangerous drug.  Under caution, he stated that his car had got nothing inside and he had put the dangerous drug somewhere else.  He was arrested and cautioned again.  Under caution, he stated that the "white powder" was stored in the Room and he would lead police officers there.

5.  A search was conducted on the Defendant. A key card to the Room and a blue iPhone with 2 SIM cards were found on the Defendant.  The Defendant was then escorted to the Hotel and they gained entry to the Room using the seized key card.  An unlocked suitcase was found in the Room. The following items were found inside the suitcase:

(i) 12 plastic bags containing a total of 3.96 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 3.25 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride (Exh 1-2)

(ii) 5 measuring spoons

(iii) 1 packet of transparent re-sealable plastic bags

(iv) 1 box of re-sealable plastic bags

(v) 1 electronic scale

(vi) 1 box of plastic gloves

(vii) 1 pack of red shopping bags

(viii) 1 bottle of water

6.  The Defendant was arrested and under caution said “Ah Sir, this is the white powder I brought from Tai Tong, Yuen Long for someone last week.”

7.  In a subsequent video recorded interview, the Defendant said, inter alia, the following under caution: -

(1) The “White powder” found was a dangerous drug.

(2) Around the end of February to early March 2024, the Defendant met a new acquaintance in a bar in Yuen Long. The Defendant told this new acquaintance his financial troubles and wanted to earn quick money. The Defendant then left his phone number with this new acquaintance so that jobs can be referred to him.

(3) Then around 27 or 28 April 2024, a male who introduced himself as "Ah Bun" called the Defendant on WhatsApp and asked him to drive to Tai Tong section of Tai Lam Country Park to collect a carton box and deliver it to a hotel. Ah Bun instructed the Defendant to bring a suitcase and book a hotel room for storage to collect the box and he took it to the Hotel as instructed.

(4) The Defendant had booked the Room on 27 April 2024 for a total of eight days on the internet using his own credit card. He put the carton box into his suitcase and carried the suitcase to the Room. When he opened the carton box in his car, he saw some white powder inside. Subsequently, he came to know those white powder were dangerous drugs.

(5) On 1 May 2024, Ah Bun called him on WhatsApp and asked him to deliver a set, i.e. two bags containing a total of 710 grammes of dangerous drug to someone. Ah Bun gave the Defendant a phone number to contact.

(6) As instructed by Ah Bun, the Defendant weighed and took photographs of the weighed dangerous drug and sent the photographs to Ah Bun. He then called the number given to him to arrange for the delivery.

(7) On 1 May 2024, the Defendant drove to Kwong Yuen Estate, Sha Tin Wai to deliver the 710 grammes of dangerous drugs. A male collected them from him.

(8) On 3 May 2024, Ah Bun instructed the Defendant to contact the same male to take back the said two bags of drugs. The Defendant then drove to Kwong Yuen Estate and collected the two bags of drugs from the male. He then brought them back to the Hotel. He left the drugs in the Room.

(9) As instructed by Ah Bun, the Defendant had collected the carton box and stored it at the Hotel, he would then deliver the dangerous drugs to others after receiving instructions from Ah Bun.

(10) Ah Bun promised him a reward of HK$60,000 after successful delivery of all the dangerous drugs. The Defendant had yet to receive the reward.

(11) The Defendant was then shown 12 packets of dangerous drugs. He admitted they were dangerous drugs taken from the carton box. The 12 packets included the two packets that he had delivered and later received from the male.

(12) He bought the measuring spoons upon the instructions of Ah Bun. They were for scooping the dangerous drug.

(13) The zip-lock bags were for containing dangerous drug, especially when there was leakage.

(14) He purchased the electronic scale for weighing the dangerous drug.

(15) The shopping bags were for containing the dangerous drug for delivery. He bought the shopping bags himself.

(16) He bought the gloves as he did not want to come into contact with the dangerous drug when he was handling them.

8.  CCTV captured that on 28 April 2024, the Defendant entered the Hotel at about 1214 hours carrying a black suitcase.  He checked-in the Hotel carrying the suitcase and temporarily stored the suitcase in the Hotel lobby.  He left the hotel at about 1218 hours.  He returned to the Hotel at about 1326 hours and collected the suitcase.  He then entered the lift and went to 12/F of the Hotel. He was captured to be going towards the direction the Room carrying his suitcase.

9.  The Defendant had voluntarily provided the password of his mobile phone to the police.  No WhatsApp records between the Defendant and Ah Bun could be found as he had admittedly deleted all the relevant conversations and had turned on the “disappearing messages” function in the WhatsApp chatroom with Ah Bun.

10.  A photograph of suspected dangerous drug was found and retrieved from the recently deleted photo album of the Defendant's mobile phone. 

11.  The Defendant’s DNA was found on Exh 1-2.

12.  The estimated retail value of all the heroin seized was HK$2,993,760.

13.  By his admission to the Summary of Facts, the defendant admits and accepts that he was knowingly in possession of all the dangerous drugs seized in this case for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

14.  The defendant has two previous convictions in Hong Kong both are unrelated to drugs.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

15.  Ms Cannise Chan, counsel for the Defendant, provided the Court with helpful and detailed written submissions for mitigation. 

16.  In summary, the Defendant is now 31 years old.

17.  His father, now 71 years old, had retired early due to back injury. His step-mother, who is 62, is now still working as a casual worker in construction sites. 

18.  The Defendant enjoyed a very harmonious relationship with his parents and siblings.  His elder brother had passed away, and he has a stepsister.

19.  The Defendant and his ex-wife divorced 3 years ago. Their son is now 5 years old.  The Defendant used to pay his ex-wife $9,000 maintenance each month.  But after his incarceration, he is no longer able to contribute towards their livelihoods.

20.  At the time of his arrest, the defendant was gainfully employed as an Excavator Operator. He first obtained the license in 2014 when he was only 19 years old.  He started to work in construction sites after he had finished Form Six.  Before his arrest, his monthly income on average was $35,000.

21.  Ms Chan submitted that the Defendant committed the present offence because he wanted to provide more for his family. By early 2024 his investments failed and he lost about HK$1 million, and he had a loan of about HK$300,000 to repay.  That is the time when the Defendant met Ah Bun (or “Chow Bun”) and was promised a reward of HK$60,000 for delivery of one consignment of dangerous drugs.  He was simply following instructions in relation to the Hotel and the trafficking. 

22.  On 1 May 2024, Chow Bun gave the Defendant a delivery task to bring 2 bags of drugs to a male in Kwong Yuen Estate.  And that the Defendant should buy a scale, weigh the 2 bags of drugs and send a photo of the same to Chow Bun before he embarked on the delivery.  Two days later, the Defendant was told to meet the same person again. The man gave the Defendant 2 bags of drugs for storage in the hotel room.  The Defendant had no idea why he was so instructed.  In any event he acted accordingly and thought perhaps it was a test of his courage.

23.  The Defendant in his letter to the Court has expressed his remorse.  His letter together with that of his father’s letter and his ex-wife’s letter have been carefully considered.

24.  Ms Chan informed the court that the Defendant is remorseful for the offences and pleads for leniency. His remorse is shown by his timely guilty plea.

SENTENCING

25.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for trafficking in dangerous drugs is life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

26.  The 6-step sentencing approach introduced by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[2], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[3], are applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff band

27.  Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question.

28.  This case concerns heroin hydrochloride.  For the 3.25 kilograms of heroin hydrochloride the sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 for heroine narcotics are applied and it would fall under the band of “1,500 - 5,000 g: 20 to 24 years imprisonment”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

29.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant.  

30.  As stated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644, the fact that a defendant was heavily involved in the packaging and dissemination of the dangerous drugs would heighten his culpability or aggravate his offending.  The Court explained at [12] to [14] that: -

“12. The first aggravating feature is that the appellant was not a mere courier or storer of the drugs to which the sentencing guidelines are primarily directed. [Respondent Counsel] submitted that the appellant played a role far greater than that of a mere courier which warranted a further enhancement of the notional sentence. He pointed out that the appellant, a non-refoulement claimant, had rented a room for 20 days at a total cost of $4,800 and had on him $1,800 cash when he was arrested. The appellant was found with over 90 bags and packets of drugs together with a knife with traces of cocaine and Ecstasy and an electronic scale. [Respondent Counsel] contended that the appellant was actively taking this consignment of dangerous drugs onto the streets for dissemination to members of the public.

13. [Defence counsel] argued that it is not uncommon in this type of offence to which the relevant guidelines apply for the offender to be found with a number of bags containing the drugs in question.

14. We observe, however, that the facts in this case reveal that the appellant was heavily involved in the packaging and dissemination of the dangerous drugs and as a consequence this heightened his culpability or aggravated his offending. We consider that an enhancement of 6 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate for this factor, although we point out that this is a matter that could have easily been taken into account when determining the starting point that should be adopted. As a matter of general principle, a starting point is based on the gravity of the criminal conduct and the responsibility for it by the offender.” (italics added)

31.  The Court is persuaded by Miss Chan’s submission that the Defendant is a mere courier in this case.  The Defendant complied with someone else’s instructions to do the following: he booked the Hotel Room for 8 days using his own credit card in order to store the drugs; he bought the electronic scale for weighing the drugs; he bought the measuring spoons for scooping the drugs; he weighed the dangerous drugs and sent the photographs to “Ah Bun”.  He then delivered some of the drugs as instructed.

32.  But all these were done following instructions from Ah Bun.  Miss Chan also submitted that neither the scoop nor the gloves were used for packaging purposes. Thus no “packaging and dissemination” of the drugs as occurred in Islam Azharul took place in the present case.

33.  The Court therefore accept Miss Chan’s submission that the Defendant only played the duo role of storekeeper and courier and was “still in the lowest tier of the trafficking hierarchy.”

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

34.  On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline band: 3.25 kilograms of heroin hydrochloride would lead to a notional starting point of 22 years’ imprisonment.

35.  In determining the appropriate overall starting point, I must also take into consideration the role and the culpability of the defendant.   For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s role remains a mere courier and mere storekeeper – I shall therefore adopt a notional starting point of 22 years’imprisonment at this step.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

36.  Although the Defendant has two previous convictions, they are unrelated to drugs.  Therefore, I will not treat this as an aggravating factor.

37.  There are no other aggravating factors applicable in this case.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

38.  I have considered the mitigation advanced on behalf of the Defendant together with the mitigation letters from him and his family.

39.  Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the only strong mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is his guilty plea which was entered into at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the sentence down to 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Step 6: Totality

40.  This case does not engage the situation of multiple counts or multiple aggravating factors.  The sentence is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

FINAL SENTENCE

41.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 14 years and 8 months.