HKSAR v. CHAN LUNG SING

CACC 291 /2025, [2026] HKCA 1011

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1583

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 291 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 364 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Macrae VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 9 November 2023, the appellant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to a single charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 4.58 litres of a liquid containing 2,493 grammes of cocaine, contrary to sections 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, for which he was committed to the High Court for sentence. On 29 April 2024, the appellant re-affirmed his plea in the High Court before Deputy Judge Eric Kwok, SC (“the judge”) and was duly sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment. With leave of the Single Judge[1] granted on 17 November 2025, he now appeals against his sentence.

The agreed facts

2.  On 17 October 2020, the appellant returned to Hong Kong International Airport on a flight from Istanbul in Turkey via Frankfurt in Germany, having earlier departed from Hong Kong on 6 October 2020.  He was intercepted by Customs officers in ‘the green channel’ of the Customs Arrival Hall and found to have in his suitcase three wrapped bottles of purported red wine.  The contents of the three bottles were subsequently confirmed to be cocaine in the quantities set out in the indictment.

3.  When the appellant was cautioned at the scene, he initially claimed that the three bottles found in his suitcase were red wine, which he had bought from a supermarket at HK$300 per bottle.

4.  There followed some preliminary enquiries with the appellant under caution.  He claimed that he had travelled to Turkey with another person, during which a friend of his friend asked him via WhatsApp to buy some red wine from Turkey.  This was evidenced by the WhatsApp messages between the appellant and a person called Ah Ghost on 14 October 2020^[2]. According to the appellant, he was to hand over the red wine after the 14-day compulsory quarantine period, which was then in place in Hong Kong.

5.  Although the appellant agreed to participate in a controlled delivery operation, it was ultimately not carried out since Customs officers were unable to contact the person who had allegedly instructed him to buy the red wine.

6.  Subsequent investigations revealed that the appellant’s round trip tickets to Turkey were purchased by a Mr Chan from a local travel agency.

The sentence

7.  At the time of sentencing, the appellant was 28 years of age, single and with a clear record.  In mitigation, it was submitted that he had tendered a timely plea at the committal stage and played the role of a courier only.  It was also submitted that based on an arithmetical calculation (under the former sentencing guidelines in HKSAR v Abdallah^[3]), the appropriate starting point after trial was 24 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, whilst the international element involved in bringing dangerous drugs across the border into Hong Kong would amount to an aggravating factor, which would justify an enhancement of the starting point^[4].

8.  The judge accepted that the appellant was a courier and adopted a starting point of 25 years and 6 months’ imprisonment in all the circumstances of the case. 

The ground of appeal

9.  The appellant has informed us by way of affirmation that he only became aware of the revised sentencing guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3)^[5] in April 2025, and took out the present appeal application on 24 July 2025, which was by then some 11 months out of time.  Leave to appeal out of time having been granted by the Single Judge, he now seeks through his counsel Ms Lai a reduction of his sentence, in accordance with the revised sentencing guidelines.

The respondent’s submissions

10.  Mr Wong, for the respondent, concedes the appeal on the basis that in respect of 2,493 grammes of cocaine narcotic, the arithmetical starting point would be 21 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.  As to the international element, he appears to accept that the enhancement of 14 months by the judge was sufficient to reflect the appellant’s role and culpability, which would result in the starting point being increased to 22 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, subject then to a full one-third discount for his plea.  On that basis, the resulting sentence would be 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. 

Discussion

11.  We should deal first with the issue of whether the appellant is still “in the system” so as to justify the application to his case of the revised sentencing guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3).   The approach to such applications was recently discussed in HKSAR v Lam Man Tak^[6], in which this Court decided that the commencement date of the ‘state of affairs’ leading to the revision of the sentencing guidelines was 18 September 2018; and that the date from which the revised sentencing guidelines should be applied was the date of sentence.  Since the appellant was sentenced on 29 April 2024, the revised sentencing guidelines will apply in his case.

12.  Since the appellant was an international courier, we do not accept the judge’s enhancement for this factor of only 14 months’ imprisonment.  It is clear that the appellant, a Hong Kong citizen, had gone to Turkey in order to collect and bring back to Hong Kong just under 2.5 kilogrammes of cocaine narcotic in liquid form.  It may be remembered that in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[7], this Court said of such circumstances[8]:

“Even in terms of couriers bringing dangerous drugs over the border secreted in their person or luggage, there may be a distinction, for example, between the foreigner arriving in Hong Kong for the first time from an impoverished country with a consignment of drugs, who may not, through naivety or lack of education, fully appreciate the enormity of what he is doing and the appalling consequences of the punishment that will be meted out when he is caught; and the courier from Hong Kong, who journeys across the world to collect a consignment of drugs in order to bring it back to Hong Kong, knowing full well the gravity of his crime and what awaits him when he returns. The international element, warranting a higher starting point, will apply to them both, since each will know he is unlawfully bringing dangerous drugs across the border into Hong Kong, but it is arguable that the latter type of courier may well be the more culpable.”

13.  Having considered the appellant’s role and culpability as an international courier, resulting in the importation of a very large quantity of cocaine into Hong Kong, we are satisfied that the appropriate starting point after trial should have been 23 years’ imprisonment, which would have become 15 years and 4 months’ imprisonment after a full one-third discount for a guilty plea.  The difference between the sentence which we find appropriate (15 years and 4 months’ imprisonment) and the original sentence (17 years’ imprisonment) is 1 year and 8 months which, in our view, is significant enough to warrant our interference on appeal. 

14.  For these reasons, we will allow the appeal and reduce the sentence of the appellant from 17 years’ imprisonment to 15 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

[1] Macrae VP.

[2] Appeal Bundle (“AB”), p 4, at [8].

[3] HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437.

[4] AB, p 11.

[5] HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

[6] HKSAR v Lam Man Tak [2026] 2 HKLRD 199.

[7] HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

[8] Ibid., at [58].