HKSAR v. PUN WAI YIU

HCCC 6/2026

[2026] HKCFI 2156

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 6 OF 2026

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to four charges on 5 January 2026 in Eastern Magistrates’ Courts and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today, he confirms his pleas and admission of the Summary of Facts.

He pleaded guilty to attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug on 26 January 2024 at Lot 827A, DD 111, Sheung Che Tsuen, Fan Kam Road, Pat Heung, Yuen Long, New Territories. He attempted to unlawfully traffic in 30.371 kilos of cannabis in herbal form, Charge 1.

He pleaded guilty to unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug on the same day outside that same address, namely 3 kilogrammes of a solid containing 2,472 grammes of cocaine, Charge 2.

He also pleaded guilty to unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug on the same day at the same address as Charge 1, namely 2.974 kilogrammes of a solid containing 2,414 grammes of cocaine, Charge 3.

Lastly, he pleaded guilty to unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug on the same day at a different address, 2nd Floor, No. 5, Lane 4, San Uk Ling Village, Ta Kwu Ling, North District, New Territories, namely, 10.19 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 7.77 kilogrammes or 7,770 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, Charge 4.

The charges arise from an inspection on 23 January 2024 by police officers from the Narcotics Bureau of a container that had arrived at Kwai Chung Container Terminal from the United States on 22 January. The container had been transported to a logistics company in a village in Yuen Long. Staff of the logistics company assisted the police with the inspection. The police found six pallets containing a total of 205 bags of purported dog food which contained a total of 122 packets of herbal cannabis, the drugs of Charge 1.

After the seizure of the cannabis, the purported dog food was repacked and restored to its original appearance for the purposes of conducting a controlled delivery operation.

On 26 January 2024, the defendant contacted a GoGoVan driver via the online app to deliver goods to Pat Heung. The driver met the defendant at lunchtime and handed the bill of lading for the dog food consignment and the driver’s fee of $2,000 to him. He was instructed to collect six pallets from the logistics company and then call the defendant afterwards for further delivery instructions and location.

When the driver arrived and loaded six pallets onto his vehicle at the logistics company, the police intercepted him. He then assisted the police in a controlled delivery operation. He called the defendant who told him where to deliver the goods. A police officer boarded the defendant’s vehicle to accompany him.

When the driver arrived at Pat Heung as instructed by the defendant, he called the defendant again. The defendant directed him to a warehouse at DD 111, Lot 827A, Fan Kam Road, and told him to unload these pallets there. The defendant had rented that warehouse for a three-month period from 22 January 2024 for $9,000 a month.

Once that was done, the defendant arrived at the location and was arrested by the police. Under caution, he said he had received tens of thousands of dollars to collect the six pallets of dog food with cannabis buds inside. His only job was to have them delivered to the warehouse. He did not sell or buy drugs.

The defendant had arrived in a vehicle which was subsequently searched. In the boot of that vehicle, the police found the cocaine of Charge 2. The warehouse was then searched, and amongst other pallets, the police found two boxes containing the cocaine of Charge 3.

The last place to be searched by the police was the defendant’s residence in a village in Ta Kwu Ling. In his bedroom in a rucksack, the police found the heroin of Charge 4 in a total of 30 plastic bags as well as an electronic scale and other empty transparent resealable plastic bags. The DNA of the defendant was found on one of the plastic bags containing heroin in that rucksack.

The defendant was subsequently interviewed and admitted under caution that a person called Fay Chai had promised to pay him for collecting drugs because he knew the defendant was in debt. He gave the defendant instructions to collect the purported dog food. The defendant knew the dog food contained cannabis. This man had given him the bill of lading and $3,000 to hire a driver. The defendant hired a driver and paid him $2,000 to deliver the goods to the warehouse.

Before the goods were delivered to the warehouse, he himself went to that warehouse and found three blocks of cocaine on the floor. He called Fay Chai about them and was told to put them in his car first. He was only responsible for arranging and storing drugs. He said again he did not buy or sell any drugs. He had rented the warehouse in his name at the request of Fay Chai.

As for the heroin found in his bedroom, Fay Chai had given him the rucksack and told him to store it at his home. His family had no idea there was a rucksack in his bedroom containing drugs.

He admits that the estimated street value of all the dangerous drugs seized was between $19,581,967 and $21,648,971.

Mitigation

The defendant is now 37 years old, divorced. At the time of his arrest, living with his girlfriend and her family. He was working as a warehouse keeper. He has two previous convictions, both for criminal damage in 2008 and 2022. Mr Lee has said all he can say in mitigation on the defendant’s behalf.

The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity. Mr Lee has stressed he fully cooperated with the police and made a full admission when arrested. He was only a storekeeper of the drugs. I have had sight of letters from the defendant, his supportive family, and a friend. The defendant explained he committed these offences because he wanted to earn some quick money to support his girlfriend, who was pregnant with his child, as well as her family. He is now very remorseful. He is studying whilst in remand to better himself.

Sentencing

I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drug. 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.

In the approach to sentencing, a number of steps have been identified which the court should take, such as assessing the gravity of the offence and applicable guidelines, identifying the defendant’s role, where within the guideline the defendant should lie, any aggravating factors, any mitigating factors, and lastly passing a sentence which is fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guideline according to drugs seized. Here there are three types of drugs, a cocktail of drugs.

I intend to take a global approach and add up the amount of heroin and cocaine of Charge 2 to 4. I intend to arrive at a notional starting point for all four charges. This would be a case where if charged with more than one charge, because of the facts, all sentences would be wholly concurrent.

The latest sentencing guidelines for cocaine and heroin is found in the most recent authority of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234. The total amount of drugs in Charge 2 to 4 is 12,656 grammes, and the mathematical starting point for trafficking in that amount of cocaine and heroin is 26 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

The latest sentencing guidelines for herbal cannabis is set out in Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329. The Court of Appeal has said that where between 15,000 and 45,000 grammes of herbal cannabis is trafficked, the starting point will be between 5.5 years and 8 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically, the starting point for 30,371 grammes of herbal cannabis is 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

I am satisfied that the role of the defendant in this case was akin to a courier and storekeeper. These are positions at the bottom of the hierarchy of drug traffickers. I find a mathematical starting point should apply.

Because of the cocktail of drugs and the number of charges faced by the defendant, the combined approach to sentencing would be most fair. Mr Lee has in his submissions considered the absurdity test, the conversion test, and the ratio test for the purposes of crosschecking and coming to an appropriate overall starting point.

Mr Lee urges me to accept his submission that even if there were a calculation performed to convert the herbal cannabis to heroin or cocaine, the converted quantities added to the 12,656 grammes of cocaine and heroin would not, when the sentencing guidelines are applied, raise the mathematical starting point of 26 years and 3 months’ imprisonment for the drugs of Charge 2 to 4. He urges me to take that as the notional starting point for all four charges.

I agree with those submissions. He has also addressed the possible international element relating to Charge 1 as the cannabis was shipped to Hong Kong from the United States. This element can lead to an enhancement of sentence, but in this case I have no evidence the defendant was directly involved with the importation. I do not intend to enhance his sentence for this factor.

The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any other aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors. There are none in this case.

The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount. After that discount is applied to the starting point of 26 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, the defendant is sentenced to 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

With the last step in mind, I consider this sentence although substantial, to be fair, just, and balanced in the light of the sentencing authorities, circumstances of the offence, number of charges, as well as the defendant.

The defendant is sentenced as follows: Charge 1, 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment; Charge 2, 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment; Charge 3, 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment; Charge 4, 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

I order all four sentences to be served concurrently, therefore the defendant is sentenced to a total of 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.