HKSAR v. CHAN WAI KEI

HCCC 402/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 402 OF 2025

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The 1st count, it involves 30.532 kilogrammes of cannabis in herbal form. The 2nd count involves 150.405 kilogrammes of cannabis in herbal form.

The facts were that on 10 November 2022, the police had mounted an anti-dangerous drugs operation in the vicinity of the Wing Shing Industrial Building in San Po Kong. A black truck was seen outside the building, and after the defendant approached the truck driver, they then unloaded carton boxes from the truck. Subsequently, the defendant then loaded the carton boxes into the lift of the building and was moving some of the carton boxes from the lift to Unit 2401 of the building. He was also seen moving the carton boxes into Room 19 of that unit.

Subsequently, at around 8.40 pm, he suddenly left the building, ran away from the building, and boarded a taxi, and went to Tseung Kwan O. He went into an apartment in Tseung Kwan O in Bauhinia Garden, where he was subsequently

arrested by the police. And subsequently, his clothes,

which he was wearing, was recovered from the refuse collection room. Subsequently, he was escorted back to the unit, the industrial building in San Po Kong, and he then told the police that those were the cartons he was moving, both the ones inside the lift and also inside Room 19 of the unit.

The total amount of cannabis seized was about 180.937 kilogrammes in herbal form.

As Mr Lee correctly pointed out, the defendant made a full confession under caution, and he gave an account of how he was asked by a person called “Ah Fei” to help with moving those boxes into the unit in the industrial building. He also told the police that he had signed the tenancy agreement for that Room 19 whilst Ah Fei was the one who paid the rental money.

Now, he also gave an account that why he suddenly left the industrial building was because he had received a call from the property agent that there was a noise complaint to the police, and the defendant then telephoned Ah Fei and Ah Fei told him to leave immediately. The property agent, Madam Liu, was interviewed and she also, apart from positively identifying the defendant, said that, in fact, the defendant was with another male when they came to visit the unit.

And the activities were caught on CCTV. Apart from that, the call records on the defendant’s mobile phone also supported what he said to the police in the video-recorded interview. And the total street value of the seized herbal cannabis amounted to about HK$34.7 million.

Now, Mr Lee has very diligently set out the case law in relation to sentencing of cannabis in herbal form. And as he pointed out, in the case of The Attorney General v Tuen Shui Ming, sentencing guidelines were laid down in 1995 by the Court of Appeal for cannabis resin. And it was stressed by the Court of Appeal then that as far as herbal cannabis was concerned, a discount of up to a year could be given from the tariff for cannabis resin as it was recognised that the psychoactive ingredient in the resin was much higher than the average found in the herbal cannabis.

And then we get to the latest case of The HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi in 2023 where the Court of Appeal revised the sentencing guidelines in Tuen Shui Ming. Now, it is, as Mr Lee pointed out, that Nguyen Thang Loi was handed down after the offence committed by the defendant, so Tuen Shui Ming’s guidelines still would be considered in relation to the sentencing in his case.

Now, as Mr Lee pointed out, the two counts of trafficking really does involve just one total amount of cannabis, but it was because of the way it was moved from the car to the unit, and subsequently some were left in the lift, and some had already been moved into Room 19. So, it is appropriate in this case to consider it as one shipment, one lot, rather than in two separate lots.

As far as the defendant is concerned, he was aged 20 at the time of the offence and has a clear record. He was born in Hong Kong and studied up to Form 3, and he was working as a waiter at the time of the arrest. According to the defendant, he committed these offences because he was in debt of about $80,000 at the time.

And he had written a letter to the court where he explained that he was forced to drop out of school after Form 3 because of the family’s financial circumstances. He had lost his job when the pandemic broke out, and he had to apply for an unemployment loan. Mr Lee very correctly pointed out that he had been cooperative with the authorities throughout after his arrest.

It is also helpful to the court that the defendant’s elder sister wrote in her letter that the defendant had dyslexia, and therefore it affected his academic pursuits and personal life. And inevitably, it had caused him some difficulties when growing up.

Now, I totally accept that the defendant is remorseful. And I have considered the starting point taking into account the background of the defendant, his clear record, his total confession to the police, which is supported by the documentary evidence from his WhatsApp, and also by the property agent. So, I will give a bit of a more lenient starting point, and I would give a starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment, and reduce it by one-third to 6 years and 8 months.

Now, Mr Lee had also invited this court to consider that it is herbal cannabis and not cannabis resin, and so he invites this court to apply a further discount to reflect that. I will not do so because I have already taken that into account in my starting point.

All right. So, you will go to prison for 6 years and 8 months.