HKSAR v. LE DANG YING KIT

HCCC 133/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 133 OF 2026

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug[1] and was committed, on 26 March 2026, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The defendant confirmed his pleas and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and his convictions were duly recorded.

2.  Particulars of Charge 1 are that the defendant, on 8 November 2024, at Lift No. 4, Ground Floor, Tower I, The Apex, No. 33 Wo Yi Hop Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories (“Location 1”), unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 14.2 grammes of a solid containing 8.82 grammes of cocaine.

3.  Particulars of Charge 2 are that the defendant, on the 8 November 2024, at Flat E, 50th Floor, Tower I, The Apex, No. 33 Wo Yi Hop Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories (“Location 2”), unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drag, namely 51 grammes of a solid containing 37.7 grammes of cocaine.

4.  The total quantity of dangerous drugs involved in the case is therefore 46.52 grammes of cocaine.

FACTS

5.  The facts admitted can be summarized as follows.

6.  On 8 November 2024, the police acted on information and intercepted the Defendant at Location 1 while he was leaving the building.  Upon body search, a key to Location 2 was found on him and one resealable plastic bag containing 50 plastic bags containing suspected dangerous drug (subsequently certified to contain the drugs the subject matter of Charge 1) was found inside the left front pocket of his shorts.

7.  The Defendant was arrested.  Under caution, he admitted delivering the dangerous drug for another for a remuneration of $1,000.

8.  The Defendant was then escorted to Location 2 for a house search with search warrant.  On a sofa in the living room, one black plastic bag containing three plastic bags containing suspected dangerous drug (subsequently certified to contain the drugs the subject matter of Charge 2) and one digital scale were found.  In addition, two mobile phones and HK$200 cash were seized from the Defendant.  He refused to provide the password of his phones.  The Defendant was further cautioned for the drugs found in the flat. He admitted delivering the three bags of drugs to the other(s) for $3,000.

9.  On 9 November 2024, a video recorded interview was conducted in the presence of the Defendant’s mother.  Under caution, he said, inter alia, the following:

(i) He intended to deliver the drugs found on him to someone at the time of arrest;

(ii) The drugs found at the flat could be divided into approximately 100 small bags;

(iii) He slept on the sofa of the flat and his sister and his sister's friend who also resided at the flat did not know he had put the drug thereat; and

(iv) He refused to answer questions relating to his supplier and buyers of drugs.

10.  The street value of all the cocaine seized was HK$52,551.20 (in the form of Cocaine powder) or HK$78,957.20 (in form of crack Cocaine) in November 2024.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

11.  The defendant has two previous convictions in Hong Kong both in March 2025 but are unrelated to drugs.  The Court was informed that these previous offences occurred before the present drug offences but their convictions were only entered into after the drug charges in the present case.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

12.  Mr William Hui, counsel for the Defendant, provided the Court with written submissions for mitigation. 

13.  In summary, the Defendant is now 18 years old (16 years old at the time of the offence) and is single.  He received education up to form 3.  He was born in Hong Kong and was then raised in Vietnam. He came back Hong Kong when he was 8 years old.  Before his arrest, he was living with his elder sister.  His mother is a restaurant owner.  He shares the household expenses with the family.

14.  He committed the present offences for quick money.  He was asked to deliver the respective drugs for a reward of $1,000 (for Count 1) and for a reward of $3,000 (for Count 2).  He could not resist the money temptation and therefore agreed to the job.  He wanted the money to repair the family home in Vietnam. 

15.  The mitigation letters submitted to the Court have also been carefully considered.

SENTENCING

16.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for trafficking in dangerous drugs is life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

17.  As the Court of Appeal explained in HKSAR v Lam Chi Wa [2009] 1 HKLRD 483 at [38] and HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei CACC 389/2013 §27, the sentencing approach where two or more counts of drug trafficking are charged and the offences occur on the same day but the reason for there being two or more charges as opposed to one is primarily that the drugs are located in different places.  The sentencing court should add the total of the active ingredient of the drugs together to arrive at a notional starting point, then impose sentences on both offences for that total, making the sentences concurrent with one another.  Separate sentences still have to be imposed and so the judge imposes the same sentence for both offences.

18.  This applies to the present case for Charge 1 and Charge 2, therefore I shall deal with them together using the total quantity of dangerous drugs involved when applying the 6-step sentencing approach under Herry Jane Yusuph[2] and to adopt a global starting point for both charges based on the combined quantity of drugs.

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

19.  The 6-step sentencing approach introduced by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[3], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[4], are applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff band

20.  Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question.

21.  This case concerns cocaine.  For the 46.52 grammes of cocaine the sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 for cocaine are applied and it would fall under the band of “10 - 50 g:  5 to 8 years”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

22.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant.  

23.  I accept Mr. Hui’s submission that the Defendant in this case is mere courier.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

24.  On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline band: 46.52 grammes of cocaine would lead to a notional starting point of 7 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

25.  In determining the appropriate overall starting point, I must also take into consideration the role and the culpability of the defendant.  His role is a mere courier, I shall therefore adopt an overall starting point of 7 years and 8 months’ imprisonment at this step.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

26.  The previous convictions are unrelated to drugs.  I will not treat them as aggravating factors in this case.  There are no aggravating factors applicable.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

27.  I have considered the mitigation advanced on behalf of the Defendant together with the mitigation letters.

28.  Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the only strong mitigating factor is the defendant’s guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the sentence down to 5 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.

Step 6: Totality

29.  In my judgment, this is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the offence and offender for the reasons stated above.

FINAL SENTENCE

30.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 5 years and 1 month’s imprisonment for each of Charge 1 and Charge 2. 

31.  I order that the sentences for both charges to run wholly concurrently.  Resulting in the final sentence of 5 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.