HKSAR v. YU MAN KIT

HCCC 293/2025

[2026]HKCFI 686

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 293 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The Charge and Plea

The defendant, Yu Man-kit, pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug and admitted the facts pertaining to the charge. He confirmed his guilty plea and admission of the Summary of Facts before me. I convicted the defendant as charged on his own plea and admission.

The defendant committed the offence on 9 August 2023 at Flat 1414, 14th Floor, Harry Industrial Building, No. 49 Au Pui Wan Street, Fo Tan, New Territories, Hong Kong. The charge concerned 90.14 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis.

The Facts

The Summary of Facts dated 4 August 2025 reads:

“Customs Clearance

1.  On 28 July 2023, the customs detected an inbound consignment originated from Canada at Cargo Examination Compound, Kwai Chung Customhouse.  The consignment was labelled to contain ‘Leisure Patio Chairs’ and was found to have comprised nine carton boxes.

2  X-ray examination revealed some suspicious images in the carton boxes.  The boxes were inspected and a total of 186 packets containing a total of 90.14 kilogrammes of cannabis, in herbal form, were found.  The boxes were restored to their original state with the use of dummy herbs and packing materials for conducting future controlled delivery operations.

3.  Upon enquiry made with the consignee’s agent in Hong Kong (“the Consignee Agent”), an e-mail was received from a person known as Jackie on 24 July 2023.  Jackie claiming to be a friend of the consignee of the consignment, stated that the consignee was in hospital and could not deal with the shipment in person.  Jackie asked for the bank information to make payment for the delivery and stated that details of the new contact person would be provided soon.

4.  On 7 August 2023, another e-mail was received by the Consignee Agent from Jackie, in which the defendant’s name was provided as the new contact person.  The defendant’s phone number being 66580157 and the new delivery address being Harry Industrial Building, No. 49 Au Pui Wan Street, Fo Tan, were also provided.

5.  Acting upon the instructions of the customs, a staff of the Consignee Agent had communicated with the phone user of 66580157 via WhatsApp from 7 August 2023, in which the other side provided the payment receipt for the delivery and Flat 1414, Harry Industrial Building, No. 49 Au Pui Wan Street, Fo Tan (“the Flat”) as the delivery address.  The other side was also informed that the delivery would take place on 9 August 2023 (date of the intended controlled delivery operation).

Controlled Delivery Operation

6.  On 9 August 2023, phone calls were made by CO17405, disguised as the deliveryman, to the phone user of 66580157 about the arrangement of receiving the consignment.  A male picked up a call and requested the consignment to be delivered to the Flat.

7.  At about 3.33 pm, CO17405 arrived outside the Flat and phoned 66580157.  A male picked up the call and said he was on his way.  At about 3.37 pm, the defendant arrived outside the Flat and indicated that he was to sign on the acknowledgment.  He then opened the door of the Flat with his keys and signalled CO17405 to place the consignment therein. 

8.  CO17405 then revealed his identity, arrested and cautioned the defendant for contravening the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  The defendant put up a struggle, but he was soon subdued.  Upon being asked why he struggled, the defendant replied that he was prepared for it when he got involved.  Upon further inquiry, the defendant claimed that he did not know what he was doing at the Flat, to whom the consignment belonged, and why he was receiving the consignment.  He also claimed that it was an unknown person who gave him the keys to the Flat and told him to place them in the Flat after receiving the goods.  He did not know how to contact that person.

9.  Upon search, inter alia, a pink iPhone with the number 66580157 was found on the defendant.

Rental of the Flat

10.  Subsequent enquiry revealed that by a formal tenancy agreement dated 7 August 2023, the Flat was rented to the defendant’s wife for two years at a monthly rent of HK$7,500.

Street Value

11.  As at July 2023, the estimated street value of all the cannabis involved was HK$21,002,620.”

Antecedents of the Defendant

The defendant is now 31 years old. He has four conviction records. In 2012, he was convicted of one count of possession of dangerous drug and was sentenced to 18 months’ probation order. The defendant is married. He resided with his family members at a public housing unit before his remand for this case.

Mitigation

I have considered everything urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Cheung in his mitigation submissions. I have before me today a mitigation letter written by the defendant in which he expressed his remorse.

Consideration

I have considered the following sentencing authorities placed before me by counsel:

(1) HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329;

(2) HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290;

(3) HASAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186; and

(4) HKSAR v Raman Kapusamy [2024] 2 HKLRD 955.

The offence in question is attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug because the consignment in question had been intercepted by the customs before delivery, the sentence in this case should be the same as the sentence for a substantive offence.

According to the tariffs set down in Nguyen Thang Loi, trafficking in over 90,000 grammes of herbal cannabis and cannabis resin attract a sentence of 120 months or above. The present case involved 90,140 grammes, the starting point therefore should be 10 years or above.

For the role and culpability of the defendant, I do not agree with Mr Cheung that the trafficking act of the defendant did not trigger off the international element. In Raman Kapusamy, the Court of Appeal considered the extent of the application of the international element in drug trafficking. The court held that the international element applies to the sentencing of drug mules in Hong Kong.

The Court of Appeal reckoned that the international element is itself capable of taking a number of different forms and may not, therefore, lend itself to a standard or uniform enhancement. The court reiterated that the international element was merely a factor or circumstance in the commission of the offence, albeit one which normally made the offender’s role and culpability more serious and enhanced the starting point for sentence.

The court pointed out that the most common example to come before the courts is the courier who, for a fee or reward, crosses the border with dangerous drugs secreted in or on their person or in their luggage. The court also reckoned that there is also the importer who engineers the arrival of an elaborate commercial cargo by land, sea or air deliberately disguised in or as some innocuous shipment, then there is the recipient of a parcel, who has arrived at the post office or a parcel delivery company, and which the recipient knows is both from abroad and contains dangerous drugs. The court stressed that they are not exhaustive categories and even within them, there may be variations and different gradations of seriousness in assessing different roles and culpability.

The Court of Appeal reckoned that in the context of drug trafficking, the international element may be reflected differently in the roles and culpability of individual defendant.

On the facts, I am satisfied that there was an international element which has a bearing on the assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant. It should be noted that on 7 August 2023, an e-mail was received by the consignee agent from Jackie, in which the defendant’s name and telephone number were provided as the new contact person and the new address being Harry Industrial Building. On the same day, a staff member of the consignee agent called the telephone number provided, that is the number of the defendant, and it was confirmed by the other party that the delivery address was Flat 1414 of Harry Industrial Building, that is the Flat. It should be noted that it was on that same day a formal tenancy agreement was made that the Flat be rented to the defendant’s wife for two years.

The international element is a matter that should be taken into consideration when the sentencing court assesses the role and culpability of a defendant.

In the present case, given the international element and the defendant’s connection to the Flat, I find the defendant played an important role in the trafficking of the herbal cannabis seized and his culpability was high.

Bearing in mind the quantity of the herbal cannabis seized, the role and the culpability of the defendant, I take 10 years and 9 months’ imprisonment, that is 129 months, as the notional starting point.

There is no aggravating factor in this case. The defendant should be given one-third reduction for his timely guilty plea, that would bring his sentence down to 7 years and 2 months’ imprisonment, that is 86 months. There is no other valid mitigating factor apart from the guilty plea. The remorse of the defendant as shown in the mitigation letter is already reflected in the one-third reduction.

I am satisfied that 7 years and 2 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just, and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 7 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.