HKSAR v. CHIK CHUN TO

HCCC 20/2025

[2025] HKCFI 4890

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 20 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of “conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug” and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 16 January 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant has confirmed his plea and his agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of offence regarding the 1st Charge provide that between 13 July 2022 and 3 August 2022, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, the defendant conspired together with a person known as “Shun”, to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely methamphetamine hydrochloride. 

3.  The particulars of offence regarding the 2nd Charge provide that between 14 July 2022 and 7 September 2022, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, the defendant conspired together with a person known as “B”, to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely methamphetamine hydrochloride. 

4.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows. In the afternoon on 15 August 2022 at Butterfly Post Office, Shop No. R146-R147, Level 1, Butterfly Plaza, Tuen Mun, New Territories (“the Post Office”), the defendant sent a carton box (Exhibit 178) of parcel (“the Parcel”) to Australia. It was declared on the airway bill (Exhibit 176 and 177) that the Parcel contained three toy models. 

5.  After the defendant had left the Post Office, the Parcel was seized by Customs and Excise (“C & E”) officers for an inspection.  The Parcel contained some packaging materials wrapping two Gundam toy models (also known as “Gunpla” models) and an acrylic display box containing another Gunpla model in a diorama with a grey/brown mountain made of plaster cloths (Exhibit 173).  Concealed inside the mountain were three plastic packets (Exhibit 169 to 172) containing a total of 2,984 grammes of crystalline solid containing 2,970 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’ (Exhibit 166 to

168). The estimated street value of methamphetamine in August 2022 was HK$588 per gramme. Therefore, the estimated street value of the drug seized was HK$1,754,592.

6.  In the afternoon on 7 September 2022, the defendant arranged a goods vehicle to deliver three carton boxes of goods from Mong Kok to a local logistics company in Kwai Chung.  By around 2.45 pm, the defendant and his father carried three carton boxes (“the Boxes”) (Exhibit 264, 268 and 271) to the ground floor of a building at No. 107-109 Sai Yee Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon (“the Building”). There, they loaded the Boxes into the goods vehicle.  A person known to the defendant with the nickname “B” engaged the logistics company for delivering the Boxes to Australia.  “B” claimed to the logistics company that the Boxes contained toy models.  After the Boxes were delivered to the logistics company’s address in Kwai Chung, they were seized by C & E officers.  Invoices attached to the Boxes described the Boxes as containing plastic toy models inspired by the animation “One Piece”. 

7.  Search of the Boxes revealed that two of them contained plastic toy models.  The remaining box was described as containing a plastic model of a fireball fitted on a stand, but inside the box there were some packaging materials, small toy models, and a grey/brown mountain made of plaster cloths of the similar appearance as contained in Exhibit 173 placed on top of the stand (without the fireball) (Exhibit 259).  Concealed inside the mountain were some packaging materials (Exhibit 229 to 257) wrapping nine plastic packets (Exhibit 220 to 228) containing a total of 2,978 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2,974 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (Exhibits 211 to 219).  The estimated street value of methamphetamine in September 2022 was HK$638 per gramme, therefore the estimated street value of the drug seized was HK$1,899,964. 

8.  Around 8.12 pm on 7 September 2022, C & E officers intercepted the defendant outside the defendant’s residence in Tuen Mun.  Upon arrest and under caution for trafficking a dangerous drug, the defendant admitted that he was the person who had sent the Parcel at the Post Office on 15 August 2022 at the instruction of “B”.  The defendant further asserted that the toy models and grey/brown mountain were given to him by “B” two or three days before 15 August 2022, and the defendant would receive HK$3,000 to HK$4,000 cash reward each time. 

9.  Search of the defendant’s residence found, inter alia, some bubble wrap, which the defendant claimed to be used for packaging toy models.  On a table in the living room, there was a bunch of two keys belonged to the defendant. 

10.  The defendant was later escorted to Flat No. 109 on the 1st floor of the Building (“the Flat”).  Using the two keys seized from the defendant’s residence, C & E officers gained entry into the Flat.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that he owned the items inside the Flat.  C & E officers searched the Flat and found, inter alia:

(1) In the living area, a Hongkong Post carton box;

(2) Inside a room:

(a) On top of a suitcase, a plastic toy model in the shape of a fireball (Exhibit 284), which could be fitted on Exhibit 259;

(b) On a desk:

(i) Gunpla models;

(ii) Accessories for making toy models and dioramas such as small toy models, spray paint and plant materials;

(iii) Boxes of transparent resealable plastic bags;

(iv) Gloves;

(v) An acrylic display box containing a Gunpla model in a diorama with a grey/brown mountain made of plaster cloths (Exhibit 279); and

(vi) On top of the acrylic display box, a piece of Exhibit 284;

(c) Under the desk:

(i) Some bubble wrap; and

(ii) Rows of plaster cloth.

11.  Regarding the items found inside the Flat, the defendant asserted  that the  grey/brown  mountain was  given to him  by “B” before 15

August 2022. Inspection by C & E officers revealed that concealed inside the gray/brown mountain was two plastic bags of substance which closely resembled the appearance of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Subsequent laboratory test revealed that the substance concealed inside the grey/brown mountain was in total 1,006 grammes of a solid containing lignocaine, which was a listed Part I poison.

12.  Checking of the CCTV of the Post Office revealed that:

(1) On 22 July 2022, the defendant sent a parcel of waybill number 816004603030 to Australia. The parcel was declared to contain a Superman model (9 kilogrammes) and a Gunpla model (1 kilogramme); and

(2) On 27 July 2022, the defendant had sent a parcel of waybill number 816004603131 to Australia. The parcel was declared to contain a Superman model (5 kilogrammes) and a Gunpla model (1 kilogramme).

13.  C & E officers seized from the defendant the outfit worn and accessories carried by him when sending the parcels on 22 July 2022, 27 July 2022 and on 15 August 2022, and at the time of his arrest on 7 September 2022. 

14.  Two mobile phones (each with a SIM card installed) were seized from the defendant. Screening of the defendant’s mobile phone found: 

(1) From 13 July 2022 to 3 August 2022 (ie the period covered under the 1st Charge), the defendant exchanged messages, videos, and photographs with someone named “Shun” in the WhatsApp mobile application. They discussed matters including but not limited to concealing methamphetamine hydrochloride in toy models, the making of diorama, the sending of the drug to Australia and the weighing and repacking of the drug. The discussion included the defendant sending the parcel of waybill number 816004603131 to Australia on 27 July 2022.

(2) From 14 July 2022 to 6 September 2022 (ie the period covered under the 2nd Charge), the defendant exchanged messages videos and photographs with “B” in the WhatsApp mobile application. They discussed matters including but not limited to the condition of the methamphetamine hydrochloride received by the defendant, the location for the defendant to collect the drug, the steps that should be taken by the defendant upon receipt of the drug, the concealing of the drug in diorama and in plastic toy model in the shape of a fireball, the calculation of profit to be paid to the defendant for concealing the drug (HK$82,600), the frequency of delivering the drug to Australia, the value of the drug, the

packaging of the drug, and the plan to deliver the drug to Japan. The discussion included the defendant sending the parcel of waybill number 816004603030 to Australia on 22 July 2022 and the parcel of waybill number 816004603168 to Australia on 28 July 2022.

15.  Records of Hongkong Post revealed that the parcel of waybill number 816004603168 was sent at Tai Hing Post Office, Shop 63, Ground floor, Tai Hing Commercial Centre, Tai Hing Estate, Tuen Mun, on 28 July 2022.  It was declared to contain three Superman models (3 kilogrammes) and one Gunpla model (5 kilogrammes). 

16.  It is further stated in the Summary of Facts that between 13 July 2022 and 3 August 2022, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong (ie the period covered under the 1st Charge), the defendant conspired with “Shun” to unlawfully traffic in methamphetamine hydrochloride including the drug as contained in the parcel of waybill number 816004603131. 

17.  And between 14 July 2022 and 7 September 2022, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong (ie the period covered under the 2nd Charge), the defendant conspired with “B” to unlawfully traffic in methamphetamine hydrochloride, including the drug as contained in the Parcel and the Boxes and the parcels of waybill numbers 816004603030 and 816004603168 respectively.  The defendant further believed that the substance contained in Exhibit 279 to be methamphetamine hydrochloride and attempted to traffic in it. 

18.  Regarding the personal background of the defendant, the defendant was  born  on  31 October 1995, thus  aged  26  at  the  time of  the

commission of the offences, and now 29 years of age. The defendant has six previous convictions, none of which is drug related. The defendant has completed secondary Form 3 education. At the time of the offence, he worked in the toy model making business, earning around $10,000 per month.

19.  Prior to his arrest, he lived with his wife and two sons, aged respectively 9 and 2, and he was the sole breadwinner of the family.  I am told that at the material time, the defendant was under great financial stress and found it almost impossible to make ends meet for his family.  The defendant was enticed by others to commit the subject offence in order to ease his financial burdens.  The defendant committed the offence based on the instructions of others. 

20.  The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.  The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band or bracket applicable to the quantity of drug concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guideline the defendant comes.  It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant.  The fourth step is to consider the aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”.  The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just, and balanced sentence”. 

21.  I shall adopt a similar “six-step” approach in arriving at the appropriate sentences for both charges in the present case. 

22.  I shall deal firstly with the 2nd Charge.  Regarding step one which involves the identification of the appropriate initial sentencing range applicable to the quantity of drugs involved, before considering the role and capability of the defendant under step two.  The total quantifiable dangerous drugs seized inside the Parcel and the Boxes were respectively 2,970 grammes and 2,974 grammes of ‘Ice’, making a total of 5,944 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. 

23.  For 5,000 grammes to 15,000 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment.  For 5,944 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, an arithmetical approach towards the guideline would lead to a notional sentence after trial of 24 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. 

24.  But 24 years and 3 months is the starting point for trafficking in 5,944 grammes of ‘Ice’ on a single occasion.  It is important to remember that under Charge 2, what is charged is a conspiracy.  In HKSAR v Leung King Hung [2024] HKCA 804, the Court of Appeal considered that in a conspiracy to traffic, the notional starting point would be based not only on the quantity of drugs seized, but also on the duration of the conspiracy, the number of people involved and their role.  Further, in HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing [2017] 5 HKLRD 799 at paragraph 33, Macrae JA (as he then was) held as follows: 

“As the court in Chan Kam Loi explained, where a conspiracy to traffic in an unspecified quantity of dangerous drugs is concerned, the sentencing court must do its best to arrive at a starting point based on inferences and assumptions properly derived from the particular facts in the case. Those facts, and the inferences and assumptions from which they derive, will vary from case to case. We would add that, unless the facts which give rise to the inferences and assumptions are clear‑cut, they will inevitably lean in favour of the defence.”

25.  Of course, the facts in this case includes what has been expressly admitted by the defendant in the Summary of Facts, including the matter stated in the last two paragraphs of the Summary of Facts (i.e. paragraphs 16 and 17 above). 

26.  Moving on to step two and step three of Herry Jane Yusuph, I take into account the following:

(1) As admitted by the defendant in the Summary of Facts, the 2nd Charge also involved the parcels of waybill numbers 816004603030 and 816004603168, as well as the substance contained in Exhibit 279 (1,006 grammes of lignocaine believed by the defendant to be ‘Ice’).

(2) I accept that based on the Summary of Facts, the defendant was a worker, but he was obviously more than just a courier or storekeeper. The defendant is obviously involved in the packaging and elaborate concealment of the drugs, for export to, inter alia, Australia and possibly Japan.

(3) The international element in the present case.

27.  Taking into account all the relevant considerations in the present case, I hold that the notional starting point under step 3 should be 26 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 

28.  Regarding step 4, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the notional sentence after trial. 

29.  Regarding step 5, I consider that the only factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is the timely guilty plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount.  Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence on the 2nd Charge is reduced to 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. 

30.  I turn now to the 1st Charge.  This involves the drug as contained in the parcel of waybill number 816004603131 sent to Australia on 27 July 2022.  According to the Summary of Facts, this parcel was declared to contain a Superman model (5 kilogrammes) and a Gunpla model (1 kilogramme), although the actual weight of the drug is unknown.  Doing the best I can and taking into account all the relevant considerations in the present case, I would adopt a notional sentence after trial of 21 years’ imprisonment.  After applying a one‑third discount, the defendant is sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment on the 1st Charge. 

31.  Finally, under step 6 and applying the totality principle, I would order 13 years and 6 months of the sentence on Charge 1 to run concurrently with the sentence on Charge 2, and 6 months to run consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of 18 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.  I consider that a total sentence of 18 years and 2 months’ imprisonment in this case is a fair,

just, and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the case and in the circumstances of the defendant.