COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, before the Eastern Magistrates’ Court on 29 January 2024. He was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The defendant had confirmed his plea and admission of the Summary of Facts before me.
Particulars of Count 1 are that the defendant on 6 September 2022, at the staircase between the Mezzanine Floor and the 1st Floor of Block A, Tung Fat Building, 21 to 61 Kam Ping Street, North Point, in Hong Kong (“the Building”), unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 2.06 kilogrammes of a solid containing 1,698 grammes of cocaine.
Particulars of Count 2 are that the defendant on the same date, inside Room C, Flat 2, Mezzanine Floor, Block A of the Building (“the Flat”), unlawfully trafficked in 7.629 kilogrammes of a solid containing 6,458 grammes of cocaine.
The Facts
On 6 September 2022, police officers carried out an anti-narcotics operation in the vicinity of Kam Ping Street, North point.
At about 2.44 pm on the same day, the police observed the defendant, who was clad in black and holding two paper bags in his right hand, walking out from the Flat and going to the rear staircase close to the Flat. The police then intercepted the defendant on the staircase between the Mezzanine Floor and the 1st Floor of the Building. The paper bags were found to contain two packets, each in the form of a block, containing a total of 2.06 kilogrammes of a solid containing 1,698 grammes of cocaine. This is the subject matter of Count 1. A black key was found from the front right pocket of the defendant’s pants, and two mobile phones were found from the left rear pocket of the defendant’s pants.
The defendant was then arrested and upon caution, he said in Punti, “Ah Hin instructed me to take this block of cocaine downstairs to deliver to somebody, there are more in Room C, Flat 2, M Floor.” (“呢磚可卡因係阿軒叫我拎落樓下比人嘅, M樓2室C房仲有其他”)
Using the black key found on the defendant, the police gained entry to the Flat, and upon search, the police found:-
(1) A black shopping bag containing eight packets, each in the form of a block, containing a total of 7.629 kilogrammes of a solid containing 6,458 grammes of cocaine. This forms the subject matter of Count 2;
(2) Some drug-packaging paraphernalia, including a pair of scissors, scotch tape, eight red paper bags, and three rows of wrapping paper; and
(3) A tenancy agreement of the Flat dated 9 April 2022 signed by the defendant, which showed that the Flat was let to the defendant for two years from 14 April 2022 to 14 April 2004 at a monthly rent of HK$4,300.
Upon the arrest for another offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, the defendant said under caution in Punti, “Concerning these eight blocks of cocaine, I was instructed by Ah Hin to pick them up from the streets in Tai Wai two days ago, and then wait for his instructions for delivery to others.” (“呢八磚可卡因係兩日前, 阿軒叫我喺大圍路邊拎返嚟擺,然後等佢通知就拎去比俾人嘅.”)
The estimated street value of all the cocaine seized, is 8,156 grammes of cocaine, is $8,332,540 (in powder form) or $14,194,385 (in crack form).
In his video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted:-
(1) He met a male alias Ah Hin (“Hin”) while drinking in a bar in February 2022. He then communicated with Hin via a mobile application “Signal”. He told Hin he was unemployed. Hin then asked if the defendant would work for him, and the defendant agreed.
(2) In around March 2022, Hin asked the defendant to look for a flat to rent for storage of cocaine. In April 2022, he rented the Flat at HK$4,300 per month for two years for that purpose. Hin asked the defendant to keep the cocaine for delivery to others, and the reward for the storage of each block of cocaine was $3,000.
(3) The rent for the Flat was paid by Hin, who gave cash to the defendant when they met up personally. The defendant last saw Hin in July 2022, at which Hin gave him $30,000, being his “salary” for storing the cocaine and the rent of the Flat. The defendant paid the rent in cash to the estate agent and had spent the entire amount.
(4) On 4 September 2022, Hin contacted the defendant via
Signal and asked him to pick up two black shopping bags containing cocaine near Tai Wai MTR station. At 12 noon, Hin contacted the defendant via Signal and told him, in Chinese, to “put the two paper bags properly” at about 2 pm to 3 pm. After the defendant had done so, he should inform Hin and Hin would get someone to collect them.
(5) Each shopping bag contained five blocks of cocaine.
After the defendant picked up the ten blocks of cocaine, he informed Hin and took a taxi back to the Building. He put all ten blocks of cocaine in the Flat. When he was arrested by the police, he was carrying two of the ten blocks of cocaine while going downstairs, intending to place them on a slope for collection by others as instructed by Hin.
(6) The two blocks of cocaine which were found upon his arrest was wrapped by himself with wrapping paper which he bought from the stationary shop.
(7) As for the eight blocks of cocaine found in the Flat, one of them was damaged. He stated that it was like that when he brought it back from Tai Wai.
(8) He confirmed knowledge of all the exhibits shown to him
and admitted that (a) he used the pair of scissors to cut the wrapping paper for wrapping the cocaine, and (b) he used the roll of tape on a tape seat to wrap the cocaine, (c) he bought the red paper bags in the Flat for the delivery of cocaine, and (d) he signed the tenancy agreement.
(9) He provided the passcode of the white iPhone found from him upon arrest. He confirmed he used the phone to contact Hin by phone and Signal, and Hin was saved as “Black F” in the Signal account of his phone.
The CCTV footage captured the defendant carrying a black shopping bag, which appeared to be heavy, returning to the Flat at about 2.39 pm on 4 September 2022.
The defendant now accepts and admits at the material time, he knowingly trafficked the cocaine as particularised in Counts 1 and 2.
Background and Mitigation
According to the antecedents statement, the defendant was 27 years old at the date of the offence and is now 28 years old. The defendant claimed to have attained Secondary school year 1 in Hong Kong. The defendant has a clear record before this case.
Mr Luk said the defendant’s father passed away when he was 6 years old and was brought up by his mother together with his grandparents. His mother is now 55 years old and living apart. At the time of the arrest, he was running a logistic business and worked at a petrol station on a part-time basis.
According to the background report, the defendant was born locally in a single-parent family. His father passed away in the mainland in 2003. His relationship with his mother and his paternal grandparents gradually became distant since his adolescent. The defendant is suffering from lumbar prolapsed disc and diabetes and he has persistent leg pain during his secondary study. He behaved properly in his formative years.
He became associated with people who had bad influence when he was working as a lorry attendant. He was tempted by those friends to participate in drug trafficking activities due to his weak will and greediness. He expressed deep remorse and pleaded for a lenient sentence. His mother thought the defendant’s growing up had been deeply affected by his illness and his academic failure.
Mr Luk, counsel for the defendant, confirmed the information supplied in the background report. Mr Luk further submitted the defendant has been studying distance learning courses on Human Resource Management in prison and would further his studies as he hopes to work in the logistics management upon his release.
In mitigation, the defendant had made a timely guilty plea. Mr Luk submitted that the defendant has great determination to rehabilitate and start afresh to support his family. I have been informed that the defendant’s logistic business slumped due to the pandemic, making him vulnerable to drug traffickers who persuaded the defendant to help with delivering and packing drugs in return for payment.
I have read the letters from the defendant, his grandmother, mother and uncle and aunt. The defendant expressed his remorse and regrets as well as his determination to look after his aging family members.
Considerations of sentence
I now turn to the six-step sentencing approach in trafficking cases as set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150.
Step one, the applicable guideline band applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned
In respect of Counts 1 and 2, the combined narcotic content is 8,156 grammes of cocaine. Mr Luk submits that a global nominal starting point based on the combined quantity of cocaine should be adopted.
In HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75, the Court of Appeal held that where different quantities of dangerous drugs are found in a defendant’s possession on the same day but at different locations, the sentencing court should impose sentences on both offences for the total narcotic content, and then make the sentences concurrent with one another.
Although the defendant was found guilty of two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug upon his plea, the circumstances of these two offences were such that the cocaine found in the 1st count was clearly connected with those found in the 2nd count. I will consider the appropriate overall starting point by adding the quantity of both counts together.
More recently, in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKC 796, the Court of Appeal revised the sentencing guidelines in cocaine and it took effect as from the date of judgment of 5 March 2025. The applicable tariffs for trafficking in 500 grammes of cocaine onwards have become lower than the previous guidelines. In HKSAR v Tsoi Shu and Others [2005] 1 HKC 51, Cheung JA said that:
“It is a settled principle of sentencing that an offender is to be sentenced upon the existing or prevailing guideline or tariff sentence which existed at the time of the commission of the offence, unless the guideline or tariff has become lower by the day of sentence (see Article 12(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Cap.383) and R v Chan Ka Wai CACC 530/1988).”
For quantities of 5,000 to 15,000 grammes, the sentencing band is 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment. On a purely arithmetical basis to the 8,156 grammes of cocaine narcotic, the starting point will be 24 years 11 months’ imprisonment.
Steps two and three, assessment of the defendant’s role and culpability and where in the relevant band the defendant comes
The guidelines to which I have referred were set for a defendant who was involved in trafficking at the lowest level of culpability, namely, as a courier or as a storekeeper.
As the facts show, and as realistically and reasonably accepted by Mr Luk, the defendant was a highly involved courier and storekeeper. The defendant had been in contact with Hin and had rented the Flat for storage of cocaine. Upon instructions of Hin, the defendant was tasked to collect the cocaine and make deliveries. There was packaging paraphernalia in the Flat, such as red paper bags and wrapping paper, and the defendant admitted to using them for the packaging and delivery of cocaine. This indicated that the defendant was highly involved in the packaging and dissemination of the dangerous drugs. This would heighten his culpability.
On this basis, I consider an enhanced starting point of 25 years 3 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate.
Steps four and five, aggravating factor and mitigating factor
There are no other aggravating features in this case.
I am required to have regard to all mitigating factors. I have been told about the defendant’s background, what he said in his letter as to the reasons why he committed the present offence. However, as the Court of Appeal made clear in Herry Jane Yusuph, in cases of this nature, personal circumstances will count for little unless they are exceptional. There are no discernible personal mitigation capable of reducing the sentence.
The real mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is, as rightly pointed out by Mr Luk, his guilty plea at the earliest available opportunity. He is entitled to a one-third discount off the starting point, which brings the sentence down to 16 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, for each of Counts 1 and 2. I further order the sentences on Counts 1 and 2 shall be served concurrently.
The final sentence I would impose on the defendant is one of 16 years 10 months’ imprisonment.