HKSAR v. YEUNG MAN TAI

DCCC 1384/2024

[2026] HKDC 1449

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1384 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

Summary of Facts

2.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the Defendant are as follows:

(1)  At about 6:15 pm on 6 January 2024, when PC 23232 (PW1)  and his colleagues were patrolling near a 7-Eleven Convenience Store at Shop No. 1, Ground Floor, Kwai Chung Shopping Centre, Kwai Chung Estate, Kwai Chung, New Territories, Hong Kong (the Store), they saw the Defendant acting suspiciously. PW1 and others followed the Defendant from behind.

(2)  When PW1 was about to intercept the Defendant, the Defendant suddenly entered the Store. The Defendant walked to a display rack (the Rack)  in the Store and placed a plastic packet (the Packet), which contained 23.6 grammes of a solid containing 20.0 grammes of cocaine, on the Rack. PW1 followed the Defendant into the Store, revealed his police identity and told the Defendant not to move, however, the Defendant ignored PW1’s demand and left the Store. At this juncture, PW1’s colleagues immediately intercepted the Defendant outside the Store while PW1 seized the Packet from the Rack.

(3)  PW1 then cautioned the Defendant and made enquiries with him. The Defendant admitted that he had placed a packet of dangerous drugs on the Rack. PW1 arrested and further cautioned the Defendant.

(4)  The CCTV installed at the Store captured the Defendant walking towards the Rack and reaching his left hand towards the Rack.

(5)  The estimated street value of the cocaine seized was HK$26,760.

(6)  At the material time, the Defendant possessed the Packet of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Defendant’s Background

3.  The Defendant is 22 years old, single and lived with his father. He received up to post-secondary education and was working as a part-time restaurant worker.

4.  The Defendant has a clear record.

Discussion

5.  Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug is a very serious offence. Upon conviction on indictment, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment and a fine of $5,000,000.

6.  The Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guidelines for different types of drugs.

7.  The present case involves 20 grammes of cocaine. The relevant sentencing guideline is set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.  Where the quantity of cocaine falls between 10 grammes and 50 grammes, the sentence ranges between 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment.

8.  There is no dispute that under the mathematical approach, the appropriate starting point in the present case is 5 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

Mitigation

9.  The Defendant has pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and is entitled to a one third discount.  The sentence is reduced to 3 years and 10 months.

10.  Counsel submitted that the Defendant was only 20 years old at the time of this offence and his mother passed away from cancer about 3 months prior to the offence.  She urged the Court to consider the Defendant’s role as a courier, clear record, remorse, youth, lack of maturity and judgment, susceptibility to poor decisions, his prospects of rehabilitation, help from a social worker, his educational background and history of employment.

11.  The age of an offender, whether youth or advanced age is always a relevant mitigating factor in sentencing: Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi-Fung and Ors [2018] 2 HKC 50.  This is particularly so when dealing with trivial offences: Secretary for Justice v Chau Tse-Tim and Ho Wan-Chiu [2015] 2 HKC 88.  However, the young age of the offender cannot be accorded presumptive, let alone paramount weight: Kuramihirangi Pouwhare v R [2010] NZCA 268.  When faced with a very serious offence (such as trafficking in dangerous drugs), the youth of the Defendant counts for very little: Secretary for Justice v Ko Fei-tat [2002] 4 HKC 59, 64.  The Court of Appeal has made it clear that no special  consideration will be accorded to the young, the aged, the ill or disadvantaged or the financially impoverished who are recruited to become drug couriers: HKSAR v Bayanmunkh [2012] 2 HKC 233, 238.

12.  In Re Applications for Review of Sentences [1972] HKLR 370, 417, it was explained that: “ The personality, youth or other personal circumstances of the offender may pale into insignificance because of the magnitude or prevalence of the offence in question”. If serious crimes are committed by young persons, they cannot expect to turn their age to their advantage upon conviction.  The courts, instead, must be prepared to “steel themselves, unless there are particularly powerful and peculiar contrary reasons attaching to the circumstances of the offender and his involvement in the offence, to the imposition of substantial prison terms”: HKSAR v Law Ka-kit and Ors [2003] 2 HKC 178, 187. In respect of serious offences, a term of imprisonment is inevitable in the absence of exceptional circumstances, and youth itself is not such an exceptional circumstance, although extreme youth (15 years or below)  might be: Attorney General v Li Chi-ho [1987] 6 HKLR 1233, 1235.

13.  Further, Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug is an excepted offence.  The Court is not required to consider the provisions of section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221.

14.  Counsel submitted that the Defendant’s mother passed away months before the offence.  The Defendant was particularly vulnerable at the time.  However, the Defence was unable to explain why the death of the Defendant’s mother would cause the Defendant to traffic in a Dangerous Drug.

15.  Counsel further submitted that the Defendant sought help from a social worker and intends to pursue further studies or training upon release from prison.  These are not mitigating factors.

16.  In HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKC 231, the Court made it clear that the discount for a guilty plea is the high watermark and encompasses a clear record, remorse and all other mitigating factors; save where exceptional mitigating factors are present, no further discount should be given.

17.  In short, apart from his timely plea, there are no other mitigating factors.  I sentence the Defendant to 3 years and 10 months, i.e. 46 months’ imprisonment.