HKSAR v. HONG MAN CHUN

HCCC 215/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 215 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 26 June 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed his plea and his admission to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of the charge state that on 27 November 2023, at Room 51, 10^th Floor, Grand Industrial Building, Nos 159-165 Wo Yi Hop Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 8.019 kilogrammes of a solid containing 6.244 kilogrammes of cocaine.  

3.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows. At 5.25 pm on 27 November 2023, police officers intercepted the defendant when he was walking along Broadcast Drive towards Marconi Road, Kowloon Tong.  Upon enquiry, the defendant was willing to lead police officers in Room 51, 10^th Floor, Grand Industrial Building, 159-165 Wo Yi Hop Road, New Territories (“the Building”)  for a search. 

4.  At 5.47 pm on the same day, police officers and the defendant arrived at 10^th Floor of the Building.  The defendant was cautioned and stated under verbal caution that he helped Jimmy storing some “Coke” in Room 51 and was willing to cooperate with police in the investigation.  The defendant was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs and stated under verbal caution that he helped Jimmy storing “Coke” in Room 51.  He had already delivered three blocks of “Coke” to others.  He was promised a reward of $70,000. 

5.  At 5.54 pm, the defendant voluntarily opened the door of Room 51 by entering a passcode.  Police officers and the defendant entered into Room 51, which was about 50 square feet with no partition and room.  Upon search of Room 51, a black bag was found on the floor which contained eight packets containing a total of 8.019 kilogrammes of a solid, in the form of eight blocks, containing 6.244 kilogrammes of cocaine.  Carton boxes, bottles of red wine, and three cigarette butts were found on the floor.  

6.  The defendant was further cautioned for trafficking in dangerous drug and stated under verbal caution that these were the “Coke” which he mentioned earlier that he had stored from Jimmy.  All the “Coke” was there. 

7.  In the subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant stated under the caution, inter alia, that: 

(1)  He came to know Jimmy through his friends at a bar about two weeks ago. As Jimmy knew that he was indebted for $60,000, he offered the defendant a reward of $70,000 for a job, that is, to deliver cocaine from the storage to clients. The defendant accepted the offer and passed his contact details to Jimmy. Jimmy told the defendant that someone would contact him;

(2)  On 23 November 2023, an unknown person contacted the defendant on Telegram, and the defendant learned the location of the storage, ie, Room 51, and the passcode to Room 51. Upon instruction, the defendant went to Room 51, found a total of 11 blocks of cocaine, which were contained in a black bag, put three blocks of cocaine in a bag, took the taxi to the address provided to him, and passed three blocks of cocaine to the driver of a white van. The defendant was also provided with the number of the person who came to collect the cocaine;

(3)  No one had contacted him since then, and he had not been to Room 51 again. He did not know who rented Room 51;

(4)  The black bag found and seized in Room 51 contained eight blocks of cocaine;

(5)  $70,000 would be given to the defendant after all the cocaine had been delivered, but Jimmy did not mention how the $70,000 reward would be given to him. The defendant had not received any monetary reward from Jimmy;

(6)  He had only met Jimmy once and Jimmy contacted him by phone. He could not remember the full name of Jimmy and could not remember his appearance.

8.  The defendant’s DNA was found on the three cigarette butts, which were found on the floor in the room. 

9.  At the time of arrest, a mobile phone was found in the front right pocket of the defendant’s trousers and the defendant had no cash with him. 

10.  The prevailing estimated street value of the dangerous drug was $8,035,038 (powder)  or $10,673,289 (crack). 

11.  The defendant admits that he unlawfully possessed the dangerous drug seized for the purpose of trafficking. 

12.  Regarding the personal background of the defendant, the defendant, single, now aged 23. He was born and brought up in Hong Kong.  Both his parents are catering workers and his younger sister is a secondary school student.  He was living with his family at a public estate in Sham Shui Po before his arrest.  He has a clear record and is not a drug addict. 

13.  The defendant quitted school at Secondary Form 3.  He started working in logistics and restaurants to earn his living.  However, his work was adversely affected due to the COVID pandemic and he finally lost his job in 2021.  In order to maintain his living, he started borrowing from financial institutions.  As he was unable to repay his debts, the interest accrued quickly and he was chased and pressurised by the money lenders. 

14.  Knowing that he was in financial difficulties, Jimmy, a person he came to know through friends, offered him a job for quick money.  Out of greed and foolishness, the defendant agreed to take part in trafficking drugs and committed the personal offence. Being the lowest rank in the hierarchy, he was just a foot soldier who helped in the delivery of drugs in accordance with instructions given to him. 

15.  The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.  The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band (or bracket)  applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of guidelines the defendant comes.  It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant.  The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”.  The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced sentence”. 

16.  Regarding the first step, for 6,244 grammes of cocaine, the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment:  see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 at paragraph 62. 

17.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a courier or storekeeper of the dangerous drug.  

18.  Third, for 6,244 grammes of cocaine, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a “notional sentence after trial” of 24 years and 4.4 months’ imprisonment.  From my finding of the defendant’s role and culpability at Step 2 above, I see no reason for enhancing the “notional sentence after trial” beyond 24 years and 4.4 months.  

19.  Fourth, I do not consider that there is any aggravating factor in the present case. 

20.  Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is his timely plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount.  Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reduced to 16 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.  

21.  Finally, I consider that the sentence of 16 years and 2 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of the defendant. 

22.  The defendant is accordingly sentenced to 16 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.