HKSAR v. DAO KA CHUN

HCCC 207/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2710

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 207 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs before Magistrate Ms. Frances Leung and was, on 19 June 2025, committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before me, he confirmed his plea and admission to the Summary of Facts, and his conviction was duly recorded.

2.  Particulars of the charge are that the defendant, on 6 September, 2022, at Room 23, 9^th Floor, Chuan Yuan Factory Building, Nos. 342-344 Kwun Tong Road, Ngau Tau Kok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 147.591 kilogrammes of cannabis, in herbal form.

FACTS

3.  Police officers laying ambush at the charge Building in an anti-narcotics operation in the afternoon of 6 September 2022 saw the defendant walking along the corridor on the 9^th floor at around 4:13pm.  The defendant was intercepted and a bundle of 3 keys and a key card were found on him.  

4.  The police used one of the keys to enter Room B23, where 297 packets of herbal cannabis were found, with a total weight of 147.591 kilogrammes.

5.  The defendant was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs, and claimed under caution that ‘the stuff’ in the Room did not belong to him, and that he was paid to deliver a block of cannabis to others.

6.  In his two subsequent video recorded interviews, the defendant claimed that it was a male “Ah Wai” whom he met at a bar a month ago who gave him some money and instructed the defendant to rent Room B23 just the day before his arrest.  The rental was $3,000 per month, with a $6,000 deposit.  The defendant is the only person with the keys to Room B23.

7.  The day before the offence, “Ah Wai” told the defendant to move something up to Room B23.  The defendant, together with two males, moved more than 10 red-white-blue nylon bags into the Room.  The defendant then opened the bags and repacked the packets by placing 20 packets into each bag.  The defendant knew the packets contained cannabis.  

8.  “Ah Wai” instructed the defendant to deliver one of the packets to him on the day of the defendant’s arrest.  The defendant was promised ‘tens of thousands’ of cash as a reward but he had yet to be paid.  

9.  In September 2022, the average retail price of herbal cannabis was HK$174 per gramme.  The drugs seized could have been sold at street level for $25,680,834.

10.  By way of his admission to the Summary of Facts, the defendant had admitted and accepted that at the material time, he had knowingly possessed the dangerous drugs seized in this case for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.  

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

11.  The defendant was of previously clear record.  

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

12.  The defendant was born in Hong Kong in April 1995 and is now 31.  He was educated up to Form 3 level.  Upon leaving school, he worked in his family’s seafood wholesale business, and is still working there at a monthly income of $20,000.  The defendant is married and lives with his mother, elder sister and his wife in Tai Kok Tsui.

13.  His father had passed away in 2017 and the defendant had since been a pillar of support to his 60 year old mother, who is now the owner of the family business.  

14.  Mr. Lai, counsel for the defendant, informs the court that the defendant committed the offence “out of sheer desperation”, source of which is his debt of $100,000 owed to the “Ah Wai” mentioned in the Summary of Facts.

15.  Mr. Lai points out that the defendant had been cooperative with the police throughout, and that his criminal act was completely out of character.

16.  Mr. Lai also points out that the defendant’s commission of the offence predates the Court of Appeal sentencing guidelines for herbal cannabis in HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi, and as such, the old guidelines in R v Tuen Shui Ming and Another (09/06/1995, CAAR12/1994)  should apply.

SENTENCING

17.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for the offence is that of life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

18.  The guidelines and 6-step approach as set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150 are applied.

19.  It is not disputed that the latest sentencing guidelines for trafficking in herbal cannabis laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi and another (20/01/2023, CACC145/2019)  [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329, [2023] HKCA 103 do not apply here since they were set after the defendant’s commission of the offence.  The applicable guidelines are, therefore, those set in the earlier case of Tuen Shui Ming (supra).

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff bands

20.  The guideline tariff band applicable to 147.591 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis under Tuen Shui Ming is “4 years upwards”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

21.  Based on the Summary of Facts, the defendant was the person who entered into the rental agreement for Room B23, he took part in moving all the drugs into the room together with 2 other people, although it is not clear if they also knew it was dangerous drugs that they were moving.  The defendant did engage in some simple repacking of the drugs, as well as delivering them to “Ah Wai”.  I find that the defendant was acting as a courier and storekeeper.  

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

22.  In arriving at the relevant band, I have taken into consideration previous sentencing cases, in particular the case of HKSAR v Wong Kin Hung [2023] HKCFI 1907, where a starting point of 9 years was adopted for trafficking in 109.355 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis.  There the offence was also committed prior to the new guidelines and the defendant was sentenced for his role as a storekeeper for the dangerous drugs.  

23.  Given that the present quantity is about 38 kilogrammes more than that in Wong Kin Hung, I find that an appropriate starting point is that of 10 years’ imprisonment.  

Step 4: Aggravating factors

24.  There are no aggravating factors.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

25.  Mr. Lai did not mention in his mitigation how the defendant came to be indebted to “Ah Wai” in the amount of $100,000, but there is no suggestion that the defendant was under any kind of threat to commit the offence.

26.  The defendant had failed to appreciate how fortunate he had been to live under his family’s care and had, somehow, chosen to traffic in drugs for a reward.

27.  It is trite law that in cases as serious as the present trafficking, the defendant’s personal circumstances matters little when deciding on the sentence.  As such, there is to be no reduction in sentence on this basis.

Step 6: Totality

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

FINAL SENTENCE

29.  The defendant is granted the full one-third discount for his timely plea of guilty, and is sentenced to 80 months, or 6 years 8 months’ imprisonment after plea.