COURT: You confirmed your plea to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. The particulars of the offence are that on the 7th day of April 2024 at lay-by area outside Tsuen Wan Law Courts Building, Yuen Tun Circuit, Tsuen Wan, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 348 grammes of a mixture containing 291 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, 10.8 grammes of a solid containing 9.11 grammes of ketamine, and 23.43 grammes of a solid containing 18.25 grammes of cocaine.
The facts which you have admitted are these. At around 9.42 am on 7 April 2024, plainclothes police officers were patrolling in the vicinity of Yuen Tun Circuit, Tsuen Wan. The police saw the defendant who was acting furtively. The police hence followed him. Defendant was seen entering the driver seat of and started a car bearing registration number WM8159 (“the Car”) parked at the lay-by area outside the carpark of Tsuen Wan Law Courts Building. The Car was hired by the defendant from a car hiring company.
The police intercepted the defendant and brought him to the pavement for investigation. Upon search, it was found on the defendant cash of $11,370 and a mobile phone. The police then searched the Car and found a “Food Panda” food delivery bag on the front passenger seat which has a blue bag containing cocaine, ketamine. A milk powder dispenser with four compartments was also found which contained some uncontrolled substances and cocaine. In a black plastic bag, there was a packet in the form of a block containing 348 grammes of a mixture containing 291 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. In a box of tissue in the glove box at the front passenger seat, there were 16 plastic bags containing 3.9 grammes of a solid containing 2.82 grammes of cocaine.
In summary, there were in total 348 grammes of a mixture containing 291 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, 10.8 grammes of a solid containing 9.11 grammes of ketamine, and 23.43 grammes of a solid containing 18.25 grammes of cocaine.
The defendant was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs. Under caution upon arrest, the defendant admitted that he was in short of money and he was delivering the drugs for money. He had no idea what names the drugs were. The defendant further said that he had obtained the drugs from a bush near the carpark of Tsuen Wan Town Hall. He received orders through WhatsApp and he would receive $9,000 after delivering them to different places.
A caution video-recorded interview was conducted. The defendant asserted that he worked as a part-time gym personal trainer. He lived alone in Tai Wai. He explained that he received drugs orders through WhatsApp and delivered the drugs. He knew those were drugs but could not tell the names of the drugs. He was contacted through WhatsApp by a person known as Faat Kei who gave him instructions. He would pass the monies he received from the drugs purchaser to another colleague on the next shift. Faat Kei would pay him $3,000 per day for the delivery. The payment would be paid into his bank account through bank transfer. He acquainted with Faat Kei for around one year.
He had made deliveries for one to two times in early April. He obtained drugs seized from a bush near Tsuen Wan Town Hall and Tsuen Wan Law Courts Building. He was intercepted just when he went back to the Car. He had not received instructions as to where the drugs should be delivered. He hired a car from a garage one month ago. The rental payment was $5,000. The money found on him was his wages from the work as a part-time gym personal trainer. He also received instructions from a person known as “R Bullet Boss”.
House search was conducted at the defendant’s residence at Tai Wai and the police found no contraband therein. Inspection of the defendant’s mobile phone revealed that there was WhatsApp contact between Faat Kei and the defendant, and there was a WhatsApp conversation between the defendant and R Bullet Boss.
The drugs seized could have been sold at street level for HK$275,254.
The defendant admits and accepts that at the material time, he knowingly possessed the drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
Background and Mitigation
The defendant is now 44 years old and was 43 years old at the time of the offence. He attained education up to Form 5. At the material time, both of his parents were in the 70s and retired. His mother resides in the United States and suffers from Alzheimer’s disease while his father lives in Chinese mainland. The defendant also has a stepfather and an elder sister, both residing in the United States. Prior to the offence, the defendant had been living and working independently in Hong Kong.
Before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the defendant worked in the hotel industry for approximately 4 to 5 years as an operational manager. He subsequently became a chief operating director of co-living properties, managing over 300 flats and directly supervising more than 20 staff members. At that time, his monthly income was approximately HK$60,000.
During the pandemic, he was dismissed from that role. Despite making genuine efforts, he was unable to secure re-employment in the hotel industry and was compelled to take up part-time and freelance work, including food delivery, to support himself. At the time of his arrest, he was working as a part-time personal trainer at the gym, earning approximately HK$10,000 to HK$20,000 per month. Notwithstanding his own financial difficulties, he continued to remit several thousand dollars each month to support his parents.
Counsel submitted that the defendant has maintained a strong sense of responsibility towards his family. While the defendant was in custody, his elder parents travelled from their respective residences, one requiring the assistance of a walking stick to visit him in prison as a demonstration of their care and support.
Although the defendant does have one previous conviction for driving with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit, for the present purpose I will not put any weight onto it.
In mitigation, counsel submitted that the defendant committed the present offence under financial pressure. He was promised payment of HK$3,000 per day for acting as a courier, a sum which he did not ultimately receive due to his arrest.
In his cautioned statement, the defendant stated that he was running out of money and it was this financial distress which led him to make an error of judgment and commit the offence. Counsel further emphasised the defendant’s timely plea of guilty and his expression of remorse.
The defendant was cooperative with the police. He voluntarily disclosed the passcode of his mobile phone to the police, whereby the police could identify the number of the contact persons. He also disclosed details of his personal account to the police from which he received remuneration.
While in custody, he has volunteered to teach English to local inmates. Letters in mitigation from the defendant, his father, stepfather, elder sister, and nanny have been placed before and considered by the court.
Sentencing considerations
I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the most recent authority, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150. I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.
First step, identifying the relevant guideline band
The sentencing tariffs for trafficking in heroin and cocaine are set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234. For quantities of 10 to 50 grammes and 200 to 500 grammes, the sentencing band is 5 to 8 years and 12 to 16 years’ imprisonment respectively. The sentencing tariffs for trafficking in ketamine are provided in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. For quantities of 1 to 10 grammes, the sentencing band is 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment. On a mathematical basis, the quantity of 291 grammes of heroin, 18.25 grammes of cocaine and 9.11 grammes of ketamine attract a starting point of 13 years and 2.6 months, 5 years and 7.4 months and 3 years and 9.6 months respectively.
If the individual approach is adopted, the overall starting point would be 20 years and 7.6 months, a starting point which is absurdly high. To achieve a reasonable and realistic sentence, I will adopt the combined approach, which involves an upward adjustment from the starting point of the base drug.
In adopting the combined approach, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principle as stated in the case of HKSAR v Islam Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146. For the base drug, I will use heroin since it is the more potent drug and it represents 91.41 per cent of the total drugs.
As stated before, the starting point of 291 grammes of heroin is 13 years and 2.6 months. I will then apply the absurdity test, the conversion test, and the ratio test to determine how much this starting point should be increased to allow for the quantity of other drugs.
For the absurdity test, the total quantity of dangerous drugs involved was 318.39 grammes. Assuming all the drugs were cocaine, the appropriate starting point for 318.36 grammes of heroin would be 13 years and 6.9 months.
For the conversion test, the starting points for trafficking in 18.25 grammes of cocaine and 9.11 grammes of ketamine are 5 years and 7.4 months and 3 years and 9.6 months respectively. These are roughly equal to the starting point for trafficking in 24.25 grammes (18.25 plus 6 grammes) of heroin. Converting the cocaine and ketamine involved in the present case to heroin, the total quantity of drugs would be equivalent to 315.25 grammes of heroin (291 plus 18.25 plus 6 grammes). For 315.25 grammes of heroin, the appropriate starting point would be 13 years and 6.4 months. If the sentencing guideline for ketamine is used, the result is about the same.
The result of the ratio test are as follows. For heroin, sentence if entire weight is the same drug 318.36 grammes, the sentence would be 162.9 months. The ratio would be 0.9141. The sentence would be 0.9141 times 162.9 which equals 148.91 months. For cocaine, the total weight being 162.9 months, the ratio is 18.25 divided by 318.36 which equals 0.0573. 0.0573 times 162.9 equals 9.33 months. For ketamine, the sentence if the entire weight is the same drug would be 110.2 months. The ratio would be 9.11 divided by 318.36 which equals 0.0286. The sentence would be 0.0286 times 110.2 which equals 3.15 months. So the total sentence under the ratio test would be 161.39 months or 13 years and 5 months.
Taking the above into account, I consider it just and appropriate to increase the starting point of 13 years and 2 months by 3 months to 13 years and 5 months.
Second step, defendant’s role and culpability
I have considered the evidence and there is no real evidence to suggest the defendant was anything more than a storekeeper or a courier. As held by the Court of Appeal in
Herry Jane Yusuph, the guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs are for the least culpable of the drug traffickers, namely the courier or storekeeper. As such, there is no enhancement on account of the defendant’s role.
Third step, placement within the guideline band
Considering the overall role and culpability of the defendant, I find that the starting point of 13 years and 5 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.
Fourth step, aggravating factors
The trafficking in the present case involved three different types of dangerous drugs. As properly accepted by counsel, the multiplicity of drugs involved constitutes an aggravating factor. Nonetheless, counsel invites the court to attach limited weight to this feature, drawing attention to the relatively small quantities of cocaine and ketamine as compared with heroin. And to the fact that the terms of street value, the principal commercial significance of the offence lies in the heroin component.
With respect, I am not persuaded by these submissions. In Chan Yuk Leong [2014] HKLRD (Yrbk) 325 at paragraphs 23 to 25, it was observed that the simultaneous trafficking of two or more types of drugs, even where they are separately packaged and not in a prepared mixture, may give rise to two aggravating considerations. First, it reflects the trafficker’s ability to cater for a wider market than a trafficker dealing in only one type of drug. More importantly, it underscores the enhanced danger posed to users by the combined effect of different dangerous drugs.
In the present case, I do not regard the composition of almost 9 per cent cocaine and ketamine as a small or a negligible proportion, nor can the quantities involved be said to be insignificant in terms of market penetration or the latent risk to users. For these reasons, I consider it appropriate to enhance the starting point by 3 months, resulting in a revised starting point of 13 years and 8 months.
The defendant only has a light and criminal record and it is not in any way similar to the present offence. Counsel has fairly drawn my attention to the agreed Summary of Facts in which the defendant admitted under caution that he had carried out one to two similar deliveries in early April 2024 prior to the present offence. In the absence of further particulars, the court is unable to draw any adverse inference as to their nature or significance. In the circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate to impose any enhancement on this basis.
Fifth step, mitigating factor
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, for which he is entitled to full one-third reduction.
As for the personal and family circumstances of the defendant, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that they carried little weight in serious drug trafficking cases. Nonetheless, I took into account not only the defendant’s frank admission upon arrest, but also the volunteer of information to the authority. As confirmed by the prosecution, the police did not carry out investigation as to the bank information and the telephone numbers unveiled did not lead to any further arrest. In any event, I still treat it as full cooperation with the police.
Further to that, given the defendant taught the prisoners English including pronunciation, grammar, and vocabularies in small groups, it shows he did turn a new leaf. These submissions, together with the reason for committing the offence and the defendant’s previous character, I exercise leniency by reducing the sentence by 2 months.
Sixth step, totality and overall fairness
After the deduction as stated, the sentence is 8 years and 11 months. I have stood back and considered the sentence as a whole. The sentence is undoubtedly severe. However, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, I am satisfied that the sentence is fair, just, and balanced to the offence as well as to the defendant.
You are sentenced to a total of 8 years and 11 months’ imprisonment for the offence.