The particulars of the charges are as follows.
1st charge against the 1st defendant - On 10 April 2024, outside Mei Yin House, Shek Kip Mei Estate, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 71.9 grammes of a solid containing 54.4 grammes of cocaine.
2nd charge also against the 1st defendant - It alleges that you on or about 11 April 2024, at Room 20, Unit 10A, 10th Floor, Ka To Factory Building, No. 2 Cheung Yue Street, Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 1,013.96 grammes of a solid containing 801.5 grammes of ketamine and 25.85 grammes of a solid containing 19.98 grammes of cocaine.
3rd charge against the 2nd defendant - It alleges that you on 10 April 2024, outside Mei Wui House, Shek Kip Mei Estate, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 191.8 grammes of a solid containing 143.66 grammes of cocaine.
Both of you pleaded guilty at the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistrates’ Court. The case was then committed to this court for sentence.
The Facts
At about 10.30 pm on 10 April 2024, police officers were conducting an anti-narcotics operation in Shek Kip Mei Estate, Sham Shui Po. They observed D1 and D2 walking along Woh Chai Street near Mei Yin House. D1 and D2 crossed the road and stood between two parked vehicles, where the officers observed D2 taking something out of his blue paper bag and quickly placing it inside D1’s tote bag. D1 and D2 then went their separate ways.
At about 10.31 pm that day, police officers intercepted D1 outside Mei Yin House. Upon search, D1’s tote bag was found to contain three resealable plastic bags containing a total of 71.9 grammes of a solid containing 54.4 grammes of cocaine with an estimated street value of HK$54,068.8.
1st defendant was arrested for trafficking in a dangerous drug. Under caution, she admitted that she had received $3,000 to traffic in drugs for someone because she needed money.
At about 10.45 pm that day, police officers intercepted D2 outside Mei Wui House. D2’s paper bag was found to contain a black plastic bag containing seven resealable plastic bags with a total of 167.9 grammes of a solid containing 126.4 grammes of cocaine. Police officers also conducted a body search on D2 and recovered from his front right trouser pocket two resealable plastic bags containing 23.9 grammes of a solid containing 17.26 grammes of cocaine.
The total drug seized from D2 was 191.8 grammes of a solid containing 143.66 grammes of cocaine with a total estimated street value of $144,233.6.
At about 6.13 am on 11 April 2024, D1 stated upon inquiry that one of the keys seized from her was for Room 20, Unit 10A, 10th Floor, Ka To Factory Building, a storeroom which she had rented to store drugs. At around 6.36 am, D1 was escorted to the room. She entered the passcode and opened the door with her key. The room was a 90 square foot room with a metal desk and a black table inside.
Upon search, the following items were found at the metal desk:
(a) 158 small resealable plastic bags containing a total of 25.85 grammes of a solid containing 19.98 grammes of cocaine;
(b) three ziplock bags containing a total of 421 grammes of a solid containing 339 grammes of ketamine;
(c) 898 small resealable plastic bags containing a total of 592.96 grammes of a solid containing 462.5 grammes of ketamine;
(d) nine packets of unused resealable plastic bags of various types and sizes;
(e) four electronic scales;
(f) two heat sealing machines; and
(g) a pair of scissors.
The total drugs seized from the Room was 1,013.96 grammes of a solid containing 801.5 grammes of ketamine and 25.85 grammes of a solid containing 19.98 grammes of cocaine with a total estimated street value of $482,818.92.
D1 was further cautioned for trafficking in dangerous drugs and admitted under caution that she had helped others package drugs inside the room because she wanted to earn more money. D1 had rented the room for the period between 23 February 2023 and 22 February 2025 at $2,500 per month.
D1 admits and accepts that at all material times she unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, the subject of the 1st and 2nd charges. D2 admits and accepts that at all material times he possessed the seized drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
Background and Mitigation
1st defendant
D1 is now 23 years of age and was 21 at the time of the offence. She is a Hong Kong resident. She received education up to Form 4. She had previously worked as a waitress and was unemployed at the time of her arrest.
D1 is single, lived with her father at Shek Kip Mei Estate. D1 has no previous criminal convictions in Hong Kong.
In mitigation, counsel for D1, Mr Kwok, submitted that D1’s role was no more than that of a courier and storekeeper and that the starting point should not be increased on account of her role. Counsel further submitted that applying the combined approach with three crosscheck tests, the appropriate notional sentence after trial should be between 13 years and 9 months and 14 years and 5 months.
Counsel submitted that the aggravating factor of dealing in more than one type of dangerous drugs warrants an enhancement of less than 3 months. Counsel also urges this court to consider the calculation produced by the prosecution.
As to D1’s personal circumstances, counsel submitted that D1’s parents divorced when she was in Form 1 and she lived with her father. Her father suffered a work injury compounded by diabetes, which led to amputation and incurred massive medical expenses. Under the instigation of friends, D1 met drug trafficking sources to increase her income. During her remand, D1’s father was suffering from kidney disease and passed away from kidney failure. D1 was unable to be by her father’s side during his final days.
D1 has been taking courses from the Chinese University of Hong Kong during her remand, including “Daily English (III) - Learning English Through Travelling” and “English for Everyday Communicative Functions”. A course completion certificate has been placed before this court. Letters in mitigation from D1 and her third elder sister have also been placed before and hence considered by this court.
2nd defendant
D2 is presently 21 years of age and was 19 at the time of the offence. He is a Hong Kong resident. He received education up to Form 3.
At the material time, he was working as a casual construction site worker and earned a monthly income of $15,000 to $18,000. He lived with his mother and girlfriend in a rented village house in Tin Shui Wai, for which he paid
a monthly rent of 7,000 and contributed between $3,000 and $5,000 per month towards the household expenses.
D2’s family comprises his parents and an elder brother. His parents divorced some years ago. His father, a private driver, has brain cancer and requires regular follow-up treatments. His mother works as a confinement nanny on a casual basis. D2’s elder brother lives in the Mainland and seldom sees him. D2 has no previous conviction in Hong Kong. He is not a drug addict and has never had a habit of using drugs.
In mitigation, counsel for D2, Mr Wong, submitted that D2’s role was limited to that of a courier and there are no aggravating features that would justify an increase in sentence. Counsel submitted that D2’s income declined significantly prior to the incident because of insufficient work, causing severe financial difficulties, and under peer influence and motivated by a desire for quick money, he took the risk of participating in drug trafficking.
Counsel emphasised D2’s timely plea as demonstrating his utmost remorse. Mitigation letters and a certificate were placed before this Court and hence considered by this Court.
Sentencing considerations
1st defendant
Before turning to the six-step approach, I first address the close connection between the 1st and the 2nd charges. Both charges arise from the same narcotic operation on the night of 10 April 2024. The cocaine found on D1’s person outside Mei Yin house and the drugs found in her rental storeroom form part of the same course of conduct.
As the Court of Appeal held in HKSAR v Lam Chi Wa [2009] 1 HKLRD 483 at paragraph 38, where two or more counts of drug trafficking are charged and the offences occur on the same day and the reason for there being separate charges is primarily that the drugs are located in different places, it is appropriate for the sentencer to add the total quantities together to arrive at a notional starting point. The same principle was affirmed in HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei.
Accordingly, I aggregate the cocaine across both charges. 54.4 grammes under Charge 1 plus 19.98 grammes under Charge 2 gives 74.38 grammes of cocaine. The ketamine in the 2nd charge is 801.5 grammes. The total quantity of all narcotics is 875.88 grammes. The sentences on the 1st and 2nd charges will be concurrent.
I have considered the approach to sentencing those drug trafficking dangerous drugs with the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the most recent authority, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho. I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph.
First step: identifying the relevant guideline band. Since the 1st defendant’s charges involve two types of dangerous drugs, cocaine and ketamine, I apply the combined approach as set out in HKSAR v Islam Majharul and HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong.
The relevant guideline for trafficking in cocaine is set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang. The total cocaine is 74.38 grammes, which falls within the band 3, namely, 50 to 200 grammes, attracting a starting point range of 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment. On a mathematical basis, the notional starting point for the cocaine is 104 months’ imprisonment, namely, 8 years and 8 months.
The relevant guideline for trafficking in ketamine is set out in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng. The ketamine is 801.5 grammes. On a mathematical basis, the notional starting point for ketamine is 156 months’ imprisonment, ie 13 years’ imprisonment.
In terms of potency, cocaine is a more serious drug. I identify it as the base drug. The cocaine represents 8.49 per cent of the total narcotics by weight, while the ketamine represents 91.51 per cent. The ketamine overwhelmingly dominates both in quantity and in the notional starting point it attracts.
I apply the three crosscheck tests to inform the appropriate overall starting point.
Absurdity test
Assuming all 875.88 grammes to be cocaine, the starting point would be around 210 months’ imprisonment. Assuming all 875.88 grammes to be ketamine, the starting point would be about 161 months’ imprisonment.
Conversion test
161 months’ imprisonment for ketamine means trafficking in 306 grammes of cocaine. Adding the actual cocaine of 74.83 grammes gives a total cocaine equivalent of 380.38 grammes, attracting a starting point of 173 months’ imprisonment.
Ratio test
Applying 210 months to the cocaine ratio of 8.49 per cent gives 17.83 months. Applying 161 months to the ketamine ratio of 91.51 per cent gives 147.33 months. The total is 165 months’ imprisonment.
In line with Mr Kwok’s submission, the three tests produce the following results: absurdity test in cocaine, 210 months; absurdity test in ketamine, 161 months; conversion test, 173 months; ratio test, 165 months.
Taking into account the results of the three tests, I adopt a notional starting point of 168 months, ie 14 years, for D1’s charges on a global basis. This figure falls within the range indicated by the ratio test, 165 months, and the conversion test, 173 months, and is, in my judgment, appropriate.
Second step: D1’s role and culpability. As held by the Court of Appeal in Herry Jane Yusuph, the guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs are devised for those at the bottom of the trafficking hierarchy, namely, the courier or storekeeper.
In the present case, D1 admitted under caution that she had received $3,000 to traffic in drugs for someone, and that she had helped others package drugs inside the Room. The Room contained four electronic scales, two heat-sealing machines, and a pair of scissors. D1 had rented the room for nearly two years at $2,500 per month. I am not persuaded that D1 was merely a courier in its purest sense. The evidence suggests involvement in the packaging and storage of drugs over a sustained period of time.
Nonetheless, I accept that there is no direct evidence that D1 was herself an actual or direct trafficker as contemplated by Herry Jane Yusuph. The evidence is consistent with D1 acting as a storekeeper, who also assisted in packaging on behalf of the others. In the circumstances, I do not consider D1’s sentence should deviate from the guidelines for couriers and storekeepers. There is no enhancement on account of D1’s role.
Third step: placement within the guideline band. Considering the overall role and culpability of D1, I find that the notional starting point of 168 months’ imprisonment remains appropriate.
Fourth step: aggravating factors. There is one aggravating factor, namely, that D1 was trafficking in more than one type of dangerous drug, cocaine and ketamine. As the Court
of Appeal held in Chan Yuk Leong, the multiplicity of drug types reflects a wider market and enhanced danger to users.
In Islam Majharul, a 3 month enhancement was applied for trafficking in two types of drugs. In the present case, the cocaine component represents only 8.49 per cent of the total narcotics by weight. I agree with Mr Kwok’s submission in this regard and consider it appropriate to enhance the starting point by 2 months, resulting in a revised starting point of 170 months.
Fifth step: mitigating factors. D1 pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, at the committal proceedings on 6 October 2025, for which he is entitled to the full one-third discount. Applying the one-third discount the sentence should become 113 months.
As for the personal and family circumstances of D1, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that they carry little weight in serious drug trafficking cases. I have considered D1’s difficult personal circumstances, including her father’s passing during her remand, and the mitigation letters placed before this court. I have sympathy for D1 in this regard. However, many people face financial difficulties and other difficulties in their family, but do not resort to crime.
However, D1 has a clear record. She has also taken courses during her remand, reflecting a positive attitude towards rehabilitation. I am minded to reduce the sentence by 2 months on account of her clear record and a positive attitude. The sentence is hence reduced to 111 months.
Sixth step: totality and overall fairness. After the enhancement and reduction as stated, the sentence is 111 months’ imprisonment. I have stood back and considered the sentence as a whole. The sentence is undoubtedly severe. However, having regarded the seriousness of the offence, involving a total of 875.88 grammes of dangerous drugs comprising both cocaine and ketamine, and the role and culpability of D1, I am satisfied that the sentence is fair, just and balanced to the offence as well as to the 1st defendant.
2nd defendant
As to the 2nd defendant, I conduct the six-step exercise.
First step: identifying the relevant guideline band. D2 faces a single charge involving 143.866 grammes of cocaine. The relevant guideline is set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang which provides that trafficking in 50 to 200 grammes of cocaine attracts a starting point range of 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment. Arithmetically, 143.66 grammes attracts a notional starting point of 125 months’ imprisonment. This is also in line with the calculation offered by Mr Wong.
Second step, I accept that on the facts, D2 was acting as a courier. He was intercepted outside Mei Wui House while carrying a paper bag containing the drugs, and a further quantity was found in his trouser pocket. There is no evidence to indicate that his role went beyond that of a courier. As such, there is no enhancement on account of D2’s role.
Third step, considering the overall role and culpability of D2, I find that the notional starting point of 125 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.
Fourth step, I find no aggravating factors beyond those inherent in the offence itself and those already reflected in the assessment of D2’s role and culpability.
Fifth step, D2 pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity for which he is entitled to the full one-third discount. The sentence after the discount is about 83 months.
As for the personal and family circumstances of the 2nd defendant, including his father’s brain cancer and his financial difficulties, I again refer to the Court of Appeal cases. They have repeatedly stressed that such matters carry little weight in serious drug trafficking cases.
D2 was only 19 years of age at the time of the offence and has a clear record. I am minded to reduce the sentence by 2 months to reflect his relatively young age and clear record. The sentence after this reduction is 81 months’ imprisonment.
Sixth step, after the deduction as stated, the sentence is 81 months’ imprisonment. I have stood back and considered the sentence as a whole. The sentence is undoubtedly severe and may carry an impact on D2 in light of his young age. However, having regard to the seriousness of the offence -involving 143.66 grammes of cocaine, and D2’s role and culpability, I am satisfied that the sentence is fair, just and balanced to the offence as well as to D2.
Sentence
As regard the 1st defendant, on the 1st charge, you are sentenced to 111 months’ imprisonment. On the 2nd charge, you are sentenced to 111 months’ imprisonment. The sentences on the 1st and the 2nd charges are to run concurrently. You are therefore sentenced to a total of 111 months’ imprisonment, namely, 9 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
2nd defendant, on the 3rd charge, you are sentenced to 81 months’ imprisonment, namely, 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.