HKSAR v. IP WAI TING

HCCC 180/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 180 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug[1] before Magistrate Mr. Kestrel Lam and was committed, on 22 May 2025, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. He confirmed his plea and admission to the Summary of Facts before me and the conviction was duly recorded.

2.  Particulars of the charge are that the defendant, on 15 December, 2022, at China Win Automobile Plaza, No. 11 San Hi Tsuen Street, Yuen Long, New Territories, attempted to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely 2.77 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 1,901 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

FACTS

3.  At around 4:30 p.m. on 14 December 2022, the police arrived at the logistics centre of FedEx at China Win Automobile Plaza and searched a consignment that appeared to have been sent from Thailand.  The consignee was stated as the defendant with the address of Room 2608, Tsz Ping House, Tin Tsz Estate, Tin Shui Wai.  The defendant was a registered tenant or occupant of the address.  

4.  Upon search, the consignment consisted of 2 wooden boards, each with 56 plastic packets inside.  Together they contained all the particularized dangerous drugs, with a total estimated retail price, as at December 2022, of HK$2,567,790.

5.  The defendant arrived at the logistics Centre the next day and requested to retrieve the consignment.  As instructed by the police, a staff member told the defendant that it was not at the warehouse.

6.  As the defendant was leaving, police officers intercepted and arrested him for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  The defendant admitted under caution that he was helping someone to receive the drugs to make money to repay debts.

7.  In the subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant claim, among other things, that a person called ‘Ah Hang’ offered him some work relating to drugs when the defendant asked to borrow $650,000 from him.  Ah Hang told him that it was safe, since “the drugs or that kind of things” would not be exposed, and the defendant only needed to bring the drugs to the car.  The defendant was promised $5,000 for each ‘job’.  The defendant provided his identity card details and address proof to Ah Hang for the trafficking.  This was the first ‘job’ that he had done for Ah Hang.

8.  On the day before his arrest, the defendant was notified by Ah Hang that a consignment had arrived at the defendant’s home and that he was to pick it up.  The defendant was, however, not free that day and so he told the delivery person to return the consignment to the logistics Centre.  

9.  On the day of his arrest, a person who claimed to be Ah Hang’s friend called and told the defendant to meet at Yuen Long Plaza.  Upon meeting up, the person guided the defendant to the logistics centre, which was where the defendant sought to retrieve the consignment.  During the drive there, the defendant took a photo of a photo of an airway bill on the person’s phone.  The bill number was that of the consignment seized.  

10.  The defendant was shown the invoice that was on the consignment during the interview, and he confirmed it was his address as stated on it, but that the phone number was not his.  He had no idea how the drugs were shipped to Hong Kong, nor the type or quantity of drugs he was dealing with.  

11.  The defendant’s mobile phone was examined and there was a WhatsApp text record of the defendant asking someone to provide an invoice/airway bill number.  

12.  By his guilty plea and admission to the Summary of Facts, the defendant had admitted and accepted that he had, at the material time, knowingly attempted to gain possession of the drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.  

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

13.  The defendant was of previously clear record.  

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

14.  The defendant was born in April 1999 and is 26.  He was educated up to Form 4 level in Hong Kong and joined the work force when he was 16.  He was working as a land surveyor at the time of arrest.  He is single and lives with his parents and younger sister at the address stated on the consignment.  

15.  During his remand, the defendant had completed a Self-Directed Learning course in Chinese herbal and nutritional therapy, as well as in pain management, at the School of Continuing and Professional Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

16.  The defendant had also made donations to Food Angel and The HK Buddhist Association in aid of grassroot families and the elderlies.  

17.  The defendant wrote in mitigation, expressing his remorse, his sense of guilt towards his family and girlfriend and seeks leniency.

18.  The defendant’s family friend and former supervisor at work wrote about how he has been a friend of the defendant’s father for 15 years, and knows the defendant as straightforward, clever, but unfortunately, eager to achieve results leading to his making bad friends.  Mr. Yeung promises the court that he will assist the defendant to find work upon his release.

19.  The defendant’s girlfriend wrote a heartfelt letter, telling the court that the defendant is thoughtful, kind, filial, cheerful, and has high emotional intelligence.  She thinks the defendant’s biggest mistake was not to have thought about the consequences of his actions.  Despite 3 years of their 6 years relationship being spent with the defendant in remand, she finds him to be someone worthy of her sacrifice.  She will help the defendant to rebuild a correct value system so that he will be a stronger and more mature person by the time of his release.

20.  The defendant’s parents and younger sister wrote in a joint letter, telling the court how the defendant had stayed home to look after his sister when the father was hospitalized for close to a month in 2014.  That was when the defendant was 15 years old.  They say the defendant is a good person by nature, he is remorseful and promises not to re-offend.  

SENTENCING

21.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for the offence of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug is life imprisonment and a $5 million fine.  

22.  The sentencing approach laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, together with the updated sentencing guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang[2] [2025] HKCA 234 are applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff bands

23.  For 1,901 grammes of heroin, the applicable guideline tariff band is “20 to 24 years’ imprisonment”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

24.  Although the dangerous drugs appeared to have been sent to Hong Kong from Thailand, and as such there is an international element involved, it is not clear whether the defendant had anything to do with the importation of the drugs.  

25.  There is, however, direct evidence in the form of the defendant’s own admissions that he had seen the airway bill for the consignment, and that there are phone messages showing that he had asked for the invoice/airway bill number, supporting the inference that the defendant must have known that he was aiding and abetting the collection of dangerous drugs sent from overseas.  As such, I find that the defendant’s role was basically a courier, whose culpability is increased by way of the international element.  

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

26.  An arithmetical application of the guideline tariff would lead to a starting point of 20 years and 5.5 months.  Given the added culpability of the international element, I exercise my discretion and adopt a starting point of 21 years 3 months, being an enhancement of about 9 months.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

27.  Save for the international element which has already been considered, there are no other aggravating factors that would require a further enhancement in sentence.  

Step 5: Mitigating factors

28.  Although the defendant had given a non-prejudicial statement, the information therein has been found to be of no practical use[3]. The defendant had not provided any information that was of help to the police.

29.  Mr. Joseph To, counsel for the defendant, refers to the defendant’s claim in his video recorded interview that he would receive $5,000 for each ‘job’ and that he only got involved in this case on the invitation by Ah Hang.  The defendant claimed he had no idea about the type or amount of drugs that he was to be dealing with.

30.  Mr. To suggests that there is a “mistaken belief”, or something akin to that, on the part of the defendant “about the nature or the potency or the quantity of the drugs”, and that it is a relevant matter to consider in sentencing[4].

31.  I am afraid I cannot agree with Mr. To.  According to the Summary of Facts, it was after the defendant had asked to borrow a substantial amount of money, $650,000, from Ah Hang that Ah Hang then offered a drug related job to the defendant to earn that amount.  At the promised rate of $5,000 per job, the defendant would have expected to be engaged in drug trafficking for 130 times in order to make $650,000.  

32.  It is not stated in the Summary of Facts that the defendant had asked Ah Hang what the drugs were going to be, or how much he will be dealing with before the defendant agreed to do the jobs.  The Facts show that at no time did the defendant ask anyone, either Ah Hang in person or via WhatsApp or the other suspect on WhatsApp when the defendant was asking for the airway bill of the drugs he was to collect, anything in relation to the nature or quantity of drugs he was collecting.  

33.  Given the work experience the defendant has had at the time of his decision to work for Ah Hang, and how his former supervisor described him as being clever, it is clearly not the case of a naïve or foolish young person being exploited and coerced into drug trafficking.  The defendant knew exactly what he was getting himself into.

34.  From the available evidence, the only reasonable inferences must be that the defendant either knew, or he simply did not care, as long as he could make a lot of money. Either way, there was no mistaken belief on the defendant’s part that “he was dealing with a different type of drug.”  He never cared what type of drug he was dealing with, even assuming what he said in the video recorded interview about how he did not know what type of drugs it was is the truth.  This is a bare assertion made on behalf of the defendant.  As such, there is to be no reduction in sentence on this “mistaken belief” basis, or whatever Mr. To labels it to be.

35.  There is, however, one mitigating factor that should be recognized and that is the defendant’s diligence whilst in remand, managing to enroll in and completing various courses.  For this, I will reduce his sentence by 6 months, taking it down to 249 months, or 20 years 9 months.

36.  The only other mitigating factor is the defendant’s timely plea of guilty, for which he is granted the full one-third discount, resulting in a sentence of 166 months.  

Step 6: Totality

37.  Taking a step back, I find this sentence fair, just and balanced in the circumstances.  

FINAL SENTENCE

38.  The defendant is, therefore, sentenced to 13 years 10 months’ imprisonment after plea.