The defendant, Lui Kiu, pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs and admitted the facts pertaining to the charge. He confirmed his guilty plea and admission of the Summary of Facts before me.
The defendant committed the offence on 2 November 2023 at Room 1104, Wing Tong House, Yau Tong Estate, Ko Chiu Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon. The charge concerned 2,735.27 grammes of a solid containing 2,137.87 grammes of ketamine and 30.2 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 26.6 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as ‘Ice’).
The Facts
The Summary of Facts dated 27 June 2025 reads:
“1. On 2 November 2023, the police conducted an anti-narcotic operation at Room 210, Wing Tong House, Yau Tong Estate, Ko Chiu Road, Yau Tong, Kowloon (“L1”) and Room 1104 of the same house in the same estate (“L2”).
2. At about 7.30 pm, PC24068 (“PW1”) and party noticed the defendant (“D”) leaving L1. D was intercepted. Upon revealing their police identities, D was emotional and attempted to flee. PW1 handcuffed D. A body search was conducted upon D and nil irregularity was found. D was in possession of one mobile phone, one wallet and one bunch of keys.
3. D was then escorted back to L1 and upon entry, another male was found sitting on a sofa therein. Upon execution of a search warrant, the following items were found on a side table inside L1 just opposite to the said sofa:
(1) one blue electronic scale box containing:
(i) one transparent resealable plastic bag containing suspected cocaine;
(ii) one electronic scale;
(iii) a bunch of resealable plastic bag (red-line);
(2) two keys;
(3) HK$5,300 cash; and
(4) an iPhone.
4. D was arrested for the suspected drugs found inside L1. Under caution, D claimed that he has nothing to do with the suspected drugs found inside L1 and he resided in L2.
5. D was then escorted to L2 for a search. A search was conducted inside D’s bedroom. Upon search, the following items were found:
Behind the bedroom door of D’s bedroom
(1) a black zipper bag containing 11 vacuumed bags containing suspected ketamine, in which there was a small transparent resealable plastic bag containing suspected ketamine clipped on each of the 10 of the bags (“Exhibit E3 to 13”);
(2) 5 small transparent resealable plastic bags containing suspected ketamine, (“E14”);
Inside the first drawer of a cabinet
(3) two transparent resealable plastic bags (green-line) containing suspected dangerous drugs, (“E15 to 16”).
6. D was again arrested. Under caution, D stated that he helped others to deliver dangerous drugs as he owed others $100,000-odd. His family members had nothing to do with that.
Government Chemist’s Finding
7. The Government Chemist, after examination, confirmed that E3 to E16 contained a total of 2,735.27 grammes of a solid containing 2,137.87 grammes of ketamine and 30.2 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 26.6 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
DNA Evidence
8. D’s DNA was found on the packing of E11, E15 and E16.
VRIs
9. Video-recorded interviews were conducted with D. Under caution, D stated, inter alia, the following:
First VRI
(1) He worked as a decoration worker, earning
HK$15,000 a month;
(2) resided at L2 with his father and auntie;
(3) he went to L1 to hang out with a friend;
(4) he did not know who was the registered tenant of L1;
(5) he was not a drug addict;
(6) he did not have the keys of L1;
(7) he denied knowledge of any drug found inside L1;
Second VRI
(8) he resided at L2 with his father and auntie;
(9) he would lock the door of his room and he was the only person who possessed the keys of his room;
(10) on 2 November 2023, he went to L1 to hang out with the male present there;
(11) his family members had no knowledge of his involvement in dangerous drugs;
(12) he admitted that the black zipper bag belonged to him;
(13) it was someone called ‘Ah Chun’ who passed the black zipper bag to him;
(14) ‘Ah Chun’ called him a few nights ago and asked him to collect the black zipper bag;
(15) he claimed that he had not checked the content of the black zipper bag after receiving the same. He later claimed that he had opened the black zipper bag and had taken some drugs out for sale;
(16) The small resealable plastic bags attached to the vacuum bags were sample for testing;
(17) the five resealable plastic bags were also samples;
(18) regarding E15 to 16, he believed that E15 to 16 were dangerous drugs as he took them out from the black zipper bag and were intended for distribution. He took them out because he was afraid that E15 to 16 would be pierced inside the bag;
(19) he is not a drug addict;
(20) he would receive HK$2,000 cash per each vacuum bag delivered;
(21) he did not need to pay for the drugs;
(22) ‘Ah Chun’ would call to inform him where to deliver the drugs
(23) when he delivered the drugs, the receiving party would not pay him;
(24) he had not processed the drugs;
(25) he had one mobile phone with 2 SIM cards;
(26) he was only a courier;
(27) he trafficked in dangerous drugs because he was indebted to Ah Chun for $100,000-odd;
(28) he had trafficked in dangerous drugs for two times since about 19 to 20 October 2023. However, he could not tell the details;
(29) he had received a total of HK$4,000 and he used the sum for repaying his debt.”
Antecedents
The defendant is 25 years old, locally born. He received education up for Form 1 level. He was a decoration worker. He resided with his father and aunt at L2. The defendant was convicted of two gambling offences in 2018.
Mitigation
I have considered all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Cheung in mitigation. I have also considered a mitigation letter written by the defendant’s father.
Consideration
I have considered the following sentencing authorities placed before me by counsel:
(1) SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1;
(2) HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138;
(3) HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290;
(4) HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013.
The defendant trafficked in two kinds of dangerous drugs, that is ketamine and ‘Ice’. The quantity of ‘Ice’ was 26.6 grammes. The quantity of ‘Ice’ falls within the band of sentence for narcotic between 10 and 70 grammes and the guideline sentence is in the region of 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment, according to the tariffs in Huang Ruifang.
The quantity of ketamine was 2,137.87 grammes. The quantity of ketamine falls within the band of sentence for narcotic between 2,000 and 3,000 grammes and the guideline sentence is in the region of 18 to 20 years’ imprisonment, according to the tariffs in Hii Siew Cheng.
I adopt the combined approach in sentencing.
Of the two kinds of dangerous drugs involved in this case, ‘Ice’ is more potent than ketamine and I take the ‘Ice’ seized as the base of sentence. In my judgment, the presence of the ketamine seized was significant and it has a bearing on the sentence. In fact, the ketamine seized formed the bulk of the narcotics.
Of the role and culpability of the defendant, the facts show that the role and culpability of the defendant was that of a typical courier-cum-storekeeper. He stored the dangerous drugs at his residence and delivered dangerous drugs for monetary reward and he had trafficked in dangerous drugs for two times since about 19 to 20 October 2023. The court in Herry Jane Yusuph reckoned that the guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs are based upon the courier or storekeeper.
As said, I adopt the combined approach, the quantity of ‘Ice’ is within the range of sentence between 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment. However, in my judgment, the presence of the quantity of ketamine was significant and it brings the sentence beyond the range of 7 to 11 years.
In my judgment, the quantities of ‘Ice’ and ketamine call for a notational starting point of 18 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
I applied the absurdity test, the conversion test, and the ratio test to cross-check whether a notional starting point of 18 years and 3 months is manifestly excessive.
The application of the absurdity test results in a sentence of 20 years and 9 months; the conversion test results in a sentence of 18 years and 3 months; the ratio test results in a sentence of 18 years and 3 months. I am satisfied that I should adopt 18 years and 3 months as the notional starting point.
I consider the fact that the defendant trafficked in two kinds of dangerous drugs an aggravating factor. The Court of Appeal reckoned in HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644 that trafficking in a variety of drugs is an aggravating factor as it can cater for a wider market. In my judgment, the sentence should be enhanced for 6 months because of this reason.
The defendant should be given one-third reduction for his timely guilty plea, that would bring the defendant’s sentence down to 12 years and 6 months. Apart from the guilty plea, there is no other valid mitigating factor.
I am satisfied that a sentence of 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the case and the defendant.
For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.