HKSAR v. WONG YEUK YU

HCCC 393/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 393 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.  The Defendant, WONG Yeuk-yu (“D”), pleaded guilty to one count of “Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs”, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 on 10 November 2025 before a Magistrate and she was committed to this Court for sentence.  This morning before me, she confirmed her plea and the admission of the facts.  I have considered the admitted Summary of Facts, the mitigation submissions filed on her behalf (including her own mitigation letter), the antecedents of the Defendant, and the relevant authorities submitted by both parties.  In determining the appropriate sentence, I adopt the structured six-step approach set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as modified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, and the recent guidance in HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885 (CACC 208/2024).

FACTS

2.  At around 12:37 pm on 7 April 2023, police officers raided Room 2202, Hotel Ease Tsuen Wan, Nos. 15-19 Chun Pin Street, Kwai Chung, New Territories (“the Room”), where D resided.  D was found therein.

3.  Upon searching the Room, the following dangerous drugs and packaging paraphernalia were found inside a drawer of the desk next to the window:

(a)  A bowl containing 29.5 grammes of a solid containing 9.96 grammes of cocaine and 8.31 grammes of ketamine (E1);

(b)  A resealable plastic bag marked with words “M 25.94” containing 23.5 grammes of a solid containing 19.6 grammes of cocaine (E2);

(c)  A resealable plastic bag marked with words “25.94 M” containing 23.5 grammes of a solid containing 19.4 grammes of cocaine (E3);

(d)  30 resealable plastic bags containing a total of 4.52 grammes of a solid containing 3.83 grammes of cocaine (E4);

(e)  An electronic scale containing 0.02 grammes of a solid containing cocaine and ketamine;

(f)  A spoon (inside the bowl at item (a)  above);

(g)  A resealable plastic bag containing numerous empty plastic bags;

(h)  A pair of scissors.

4.  Three mobile phones were also found in the Room.

5.  D was arrested.  Under caution, she admitted that all the drugs in the Room belonged to her for sale.

6.  In the subsequent video-recorded interview, D under caution remained silent to most questions and only stated, inter alia, the following:

(a)  While she confirmed her admission during initial caution of possessing the drugs in the Room, she denied saying that the drugs were for sale; and

(b)  The Room was rented under her elder sister’s name but she was the one who paid the rent.

7.  The Government Chemist subsequently confirmed the narcotic contents of E1-E4.  The total drugs seized from the Room were 81.04 grammes of solid containing 52.79 grammes of cocaine and 8.31 grammes of ketamine.

8.  D now accepts and admits that at all material times, she knowingly possessed all the drugs seized in the Room for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

THE ANTECEDENTS OF THE DEFENDANT

9.  D is a female, aged 34 (born in Hong Kong in September 1991).  She has no previous criminal convictions.  She has completed F.6 education.  She was unemployed at the time of arrest and she was separated with her husband and resided with her 10-year-old son at a public housing estate in Tuen Mun.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

10.  I have carefully considered the mitigation submissions filed on behalf of D, including her own mitigation letter dated 6 December 2025, and the submissions of her counsel, Ms. Josephine Tjia. 

11.  D was born in Hong Kong and grew up in a single-parent family, raised solely by her father.  Her father was unable to work due to caring for D and her sister, and the family relied on the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance.  Ms. Tjia said that their family’s poverty led to long-term ridicule and bullying from classmates, leaving an indelible scar on her heart and instilling in her the belief that without money, there is no dignity.

12.  D first worked as a model, earning a relatively stable income sufficient to support herself and her father.  At the age of 22, she had an unplanned pregnancy.  During her pregnancy, she and her boyfriend argued constantly.  After her son was born, she took on full-time care of him while her boyfriend worked to support the family.  He verbally abused her, treating her like a burden with no income.  Over the years, their relationship deteriorated.  He became increasingly violent towards her.  Due to having no money, she had to endure the injuries silently, until she finally needed to be hospitalised and the police had to be called.

13.  Unable to bear it any longer, she decided to leave.  Suddenly losing her breadwinner, and burdened with the responsibility of caring for her unemployed father and raising her son, she went astray and ultimately committed this grave mistake.

14.  In her mitigation letter, D deeply regrets the mistakes she has made, for which she has no excuses.  She believes she deserves punishment and is willing to bear legal responsibility for her mistakes.  She has been detained at Lo Wu Correctional Institution for these past two years, and through harsh winters and sparse summers, she has learned to grow and reflect.

15.  As a mother, she feels ashamed for setting a bad example for her child.  As a daughter, she feels guilty towards her father for raising her.  She has missed precious time with her son as he grows up, and her father’s health is deteriorating.  She promises from now on to follow the rules, work diligently, stay away from bad friends, and spend more time educating her son.

MITIGATING FACTORS ADVANCED

16.  The Defence submits the following mitigating factors:

(i)  Early guilty plea;

(ii)  Frank admissions under caution;

(iii)  Remorse;

(iv)  Difficult personal circumstances and

(v)  Clear record.

17.  I have taken all of these matters into account.  The early plea is the most significant mitigating factor.  D’s remorse, as demonstrated by her frank admissions under caution, her mitigation letter, and her difficult personal circumstances, are also factors I have considered.  However, these must be weighed against the very serious nature of the offence and the substantial quantity of drugs involved.

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS

18.  Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence.  The Court of Appeal has established the six-step sentencing approach in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.  I shall apply that approach.

Step 1: Identify the Relevant Guideline Band

19.  The total quantity of drugs seized is:

•  52.79 grammes of cocaine; and

•  8.31 grammes of ketamine.

20.  For cocaine, the applicable guideline is HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138. The tariffs are as follows:

•  Up to 10 grammes: 2 to 5 years

•  10 to 50 grammes: 5 to 8 years

•  50 to 200 grammes: 8 to 12 years

•  200 to 500 grammes: 12 to 16 years

•  500 to 1,500 grammes: 16 to 20 years

•  1,500 to 5,000 grammes: 20 to 24 years

•  5,000 to 15,000 grammes: 24 to 27 years

•  15,000 to 30,000 grammes: 27 to 30 years

•  Above 30,000 grammes: Discretionary

The quantity of 52.79g of cocaine falls within the 50 to 200 grammes band, which carries a starting point range of 8 to 12 years.

21.  For ketamine, the applicable guideline is Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1.  The tariffs are as follows:

•  1 to 10 grammes: 2 to 4 years

•  10 to 50 grammes: 4 to 6 years

•  50 to 300 grammes: 6 to 9 years

•  300 to 600 grammes: 9 to 12 years

•  600 to 1000 grammes: 12 to 14 years

•  Over 1000 grammes: 14 years upward

The quantity of 8.31g of ketamine falls within the 1 to 10 grammes band, which carries a starting point range of 2 to 4 years.

Step 2: Assess the Defendant’s Role and Culpability

22.  D admitted under caution that the drugs were for sale.  Although she sought to resile from that admission in the subsequent video-recorded interview, the presence of electronic scales, empty plastic bags, and a spoon strongly indicates that D was involved in packaging and preparing the drugs for sale.  She was in control of the Room where the drugs were stored.  The drugs were found in a drawer of the desk next to the window, indicating they were readily accessible.

23.  D is therefore an actual trafficker and, given the presence of packaging paraphernalia, her role is more active and integral than a mere custodian.  She was operating a small-scale trafficking business from her hotel room.  Her role is more active and integral than a mere courier or storekeeper.  She was heavily involved in the packaging and dissemination of the dangerous drugs and as a consequence this heightened her culpability.  Her culpability is accordingly higher.

Step 3: Identify the Starting Point within the Band

24.  The drugs involved are a cocktail of cocaine and ketamine.  In determining the appropriate starting point for such a cocktail, I have had regard to the ratio test as a cross-check. In HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885 (CACC 208/2024), the Court of Appeal reconsidered the three check tests and held that the absurdity and conversion tests no longer serve any useful purpose and the ratio test is to be used as a cross-check.

25.  The Prosecution has helpfully provided calculations for the ratio test:

Type of Drug	Sentence Assuming (61.1g of Single Drug)	Ratio	Sentence
Cocaine	8.3 years	86.4%	86 months
Ketamine	6.13 years	13.6%	10 months
Total 96 months (8 years)

26.  The Defence’s mitigation submissions also adopt this approach and arrive at the same calculation.

27.  I consider that the ratio test result of 96 months (8 years)  is a fair reflection of the overall criminality.  However, I note that the quantity of cocaine (52.79g)  is at the very bottom of the 50-200g band, just above the 50g threshold.  The sentence for 52.79g of cocaine alone would be approximately 8 years and 1 month (8.07 years).  The ketamine component (8.31g)  adds a further 3 years and 7 months if considered alone.

28.  Considering the substantial total quantity of drugs (61.1 grammes narcotic weight), D’s active role as an actual trafficker involved in packaging, and the fact that she was in control of premises containing a significant quantity of multiple drugs, I adopt a starting point of 102 months’ (8 years and 6 months)  imprisonment before considering aggravating and mitigating factors.

Step 4: Aggravating Factors for Enhancement

29.  I now consider aggravating factors personal to D that justify enhancing the starting point.  As held in HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644, trafficking in a cocktail of drugs is an aggravating factor as it caters to a wider market.  An increase of 6 months is appropriate.

30.  Considering this aggravating factor, I apply an enhancement of 6 months.

31.  The notional sentence after trial is therefore:

•  102 months + 6 months = 108 months’ (9 years)  imprisonment.

Step 5: Mitigating Factors for Discount

32.  I now consider all mitigating factors to determine the overall discount from the notional sentence after trial:

(i)  Guilty Plea – D pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. This demonstrates remorse and saved police and court resources. This has significant utilitarian value and is the most substantial mitigating factor. She is entitled to a full one-third discount.

(ii)  Personal Mitigation – D’s difficult background (single-parent family, poverty, domestic violence, being a single mother with an unemployed father to support)  is compelling. While personal circumstances generally count for little in serious drug trafficking cases, the Court of Appeal has recognised that exceptional personal mitigation may warrant some recognition. D’s circumstances are genuinely tragic and provide context for her descent into offending. Her remorse is genuine.

33.  Applying the one-third discount to the notional sentence of 9 years results in 6 years’ imprisonment.

34.  In light of her exceptionally difficult personal circumstances, I exercise my discretion to grant a further modest discount of 2 months from this figure.

35.  The sentence after mitigation is therefore 70 months’ (5 years and 10 months)  imprisonment.

Step 6: Apply the Totality Principle and Finalise Sentence

36.  The sentence derived from the preceding steps is 5 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

37.  I must stand back and ensure this sentence is fair, just, and proportionate to D’s overall criminality (Herry Jane Yusuph at §79).  The sentence reflects the gravity of trafficking a significant quantity of a cocktail of drugs (over 60 grammes narcotic weight).  It is adequately deterrent and punitive.  It is also tempered by her timely plea, frank admissions, and the exceptional personal mitigation.

38.  The sentence is not crushing nor disproportionate.  It properly reflects the seriousness of the offence and D’s personal circumstances.

CONCLUSION

39.  Accordingly, D is sentenced to 5 years and 10 months’ imprisonment for the single charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs.