HKSAR v. MOK HOI CHUN, GRAYSON

HCCC 187/2024

[2026] HKCFI 3252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 187 OF 2024

_____________________

_____________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

THE CHARGE

1.  The defendant, Mok Hoi Chun, Grayson, was convicted after trial by a unanimous jury on 31 March 2026 of one count of “Conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs”, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) and 39 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, and section 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.  The particulars of the offence alleged that between 24 January 2020 and 13 March 2021, the defendant conspired with Pon Chao-kang and others unknown to traffic in dangerous drugs, namely ketamine and cannabis.

THE FACTS

2.  The prosecution case, which the jury accepted, was established primarily through the evidence of the co‑conspirator, Pon Chao-kang (PW1), who had already pleaded guilty to trafficking and was serving a long sentence.  He gave evidence under immunity.  The jury, by their verdict, must have accepted his testimony as truthful and reliable.

3.  The evidence showed that the defendant, known to Pon as “Keith”, had agreed in early 2020 to involve Pon in the distribution of ketamine.  The defendant told Pon that he had a batch of ketamine to handle for “bosses” and was looking for helpers.  Pon agreed.  That was the unlawful agreement – the conspiracy.

4.  The conspiracy operated from at least 24 January 2020 until 13 March 2021, when Pon was arrested red‑handed.  During that period, the defendant and Pon rented a garage and later moved the drugs to a workshop at Unit 50, Nos. 20-24, 2/F, Block B, Focal Industrial Centre in Hung Hom (“Unit 50”).  Pon was instructed by the defendant to collect bags of ketamine from Unit 50 and deliver them to a person called “Lokjai” on the ground floor.  For each delivery, Pon was paid cash – HK$500 for a 28grammes bag.  He had earned about HK$10,000 before his arrest.

5.  On 13 March 2021 at about 8:19 pm, police intercepted Pon outside Unit 50.  He was carrying two resealable plastic bags containing 47.5 grams of ketamine.  Using a passcode provided by Pon, police entered Unit 50 and found a substantial drug packing operation.  They seized:

· Seven plastic boxes containing a total of 14,832 grams of ketamine;

· Two empty boxes with residual 0.53 gram of ketamine; and

· A sealing machine, an electronic scale, and many resealable plastic bags.

The potential street value of the ketamine from Unit 50 alone was HK$9.8 million.

6.  On the following day, 14 March 2021, police raided a second location – Garage G142,B2/F, Celestial Heights car park in Kowloon City.  There they seized:

· 704.3 grams of herbal cannabis; and

· 41.85 grams of THC (in vape cartridges).

The total street value of the cannabis and THC was about HK$140,000.

7.  Digital evidence adduced confirmed the defendant’s involvement. WhatsApp messages between Pon and the telephone number 66335898 were recovered. The defendant had reported that number as his contact number to the Registration of Persons (RoP) Records office on 13 November 2020 when he submitted the application for his Permanent Hong Kong Identity Card.  In the WhatsApp messages, coded language was used to discuss drug deliveries.  On 19 May 2023, Pon positively identified the defendant in an identification parade as “Keith”.

8.  The defendant was arrested on 28 April 2023 at Lok Ma Chau control point.  In a video‑recorded interview, he acknowledged knowing Pon for about ten years but claimed he could not recall the phone number and denied any knowledge of the drugs.  By their unanimous verdict of guilty, the jury clearly rejected that defence.

BACKGROUND AND CRIMINAL RECORDS OF THE DEFENDANT

9.  The defendant is a Hong Kong permanent resident.  He is now age 39.  He attained university education in Hong Kong.

10.  The defendant has the following convictions:

· 2011: Convicted in the District Court of an offence of “Trafficking in a dangerous drug”. He was sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment.

· 2021: Convicted of multiple traffic offences – careless driving, failing to report an accident, failing to stop, and safety glass regulation – for which he received a 240‑hour Community Service Order (later extended).

· 2022: Convicted of multiple traffic offences – driving while disqualified, using a vehicle without third‑party insurance, and crossing continuous double white lines – receiving a 100‑hour Community Service Order, fines, and 12 months’ disqualification.

11.  The 2011 drug trafficking conviction is undoubtedly a similar offence to the present offence.  However, that conviction occurred approximately nine years before the commencement of the present offence (January 2020).  Given the significant lapse of time, I do not consider it appropriate to enhance the sentence on account of this previous record.

MITIGATION

12.  Mr. Polson, on behalf of the defendant, accepted that the guideline band for the combined drugs (ketamine and cannabis) falls within the range of 20 to 22 years’ imprisonment according to the calculation done by the prosecution.  He conceded that the defendant’s role is that of a storekeeper dealer, not a mere courier.  No other mitigating factors were advanced.  This morning, he submitted a letter of mitigation written by the defendant. The defendant has expressed deep remorse for committing the trafficking of drugs for the second time blaming the pandemics which contributed to his business failures causing mental stress as well as financial difficulties. He promised to turn into new leaf and begged the Court for leniency. The defendant pleaded not guilty and was convicted after trial, so no discount for a guilty plea or remorse applies.

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH

13.  I sentence the defendant in accordance with the six‑step approach set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

Step 1: Identify the relevant guideline band for the drugs involved

14.  The drugs in this case are ketamine and cannabis (including THC).  The quantities are vastly different in both weight and potency.  Boththe prosecution and the defence agree that the individual approach (rather than the combined approach, namely, mixing the drugs) is appropriate, following HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817.

15.  Ketamine: The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin [2013] 1 HKLRD 627 held that where more than 3 kg of ketamine is involved, the starting point can exceed 20 years, though the increase should not be purely proportional to the quantity. Here, the ketamine seized was 14.832 kg – nearly five times the 3 kg threshold.  In HKSAR v So Wing On CACC 296/2012 (21.31 kg of ketamine), the Court of Appeal adopted a starting point in the region of 22 years.  In HKSAR v Wong Kam Chuen CACC 75/2012, similar quantities (39.73 kg of ketamine) attracted starting points of 20 to 21 years.

16.  Cannabis: The applicable tariff is set out in AG v Tuen Shui Ming [1995] 2 HKCLR 129. For less than 2,000 grams of cannabis, the tariff is up to 16 months.  An arithmetic calculation for 745 grams (cannabis and THC combined) would be about 6 months’ imprisonment.  Given the small quantity relative to the ketamine, the sentence for cannabis will be wholly subordinate to the sentence I shall impose for the ketamine in this case.

17.  Both the prosecution and the defence have helpfully agreed that the starting point for the ketamine, before any enhancement, lies in the range of 20 to 22 years’ imprisonment.  I consider that an appropriate starting point for the ketamine conspiracy is 21 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.  Because of the relatively small quantity of cannabis, the overall starting point in this charge remains at 21 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

Step 2: Identify the role and culpability of the defendant

18.  The jury’s verdict necessarily means they found that the defendant was a knowing and active participant in the conspiracy.  He was not a mere courier.  He recruited Pon, gave instructions, controlled access to Unit 50 (via the passcode), arranged the storage of large quantity of ketamine, and rewarded Pon for deliveries.  Mr. Polson conceded that the defendant’s role was that of a “storekeeper dealer” who was above PW1.  However, he submitted that the defendant was not the overall mastermind, as PW1 frequently referred to his own “bosses” in the messages.  I can accept that submission, but while there may have been others higher up, that does not diminish the defendant’s significant role in the conspiracy.

19.  In my analysis, he was a storekeeper dealer with operational control over the ketamine.  This places him at a higher level of culpability than a street‑level courier, though I accept he was not the ultimate mastermind.

Step 3: Identify where in the band the defendant stands

20.  Given the large quantity (14.8 kg) and the defendant’s operational role, I place him in the upper part of the 20‑22 year range.  The appropriate starting point is enhanced by 6 months from 21 years and 6 months to 22 years’ imprisonment to reflect his role in this case.

Step 4 & 5: Aggravating and mitigating factors

21.  Aggravating factors (none):

(a) The defendant pleaded not guilty and was convicted after trial. There is no discount for a plea or any expression of remorse. That is not an additional punishment, but it means the starting point is not reduced.

(b) The defendant has a previous conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2011. However, that conviction occurred approximately nine years before the commencement of the present offence (January 2020). Given the significant lapse of time, I do not consider it appropriate to enhance the sentence on account of this previous record. His subsequent traffic offences, while showing a disregard for the law, are not drug‑related and do not themselves warrant an increase.

22.  Mitigating factors (none):

· No personal mitigation, such as family hardship or genuine remorse, was advanced by Mr. Polson. As to the mitigation advanced by the defendant in his own mitigation letter, as Mr. Polson has also conceded, and in my view properly, personal and family circumstances virtually plays no part in the mitigation for serious offences such as drug trafficking.

23.  I have considered the defence submission that the defendant was not the overall mastermind.  I have already taken that into account in fixing the starting point at 22 years rather than higher.  

Step 6: Stand back and review the overall sentence

24.  Taking all the circumstances together – the very large quantity of ketamine, the value of the ketamine which is nearly HK$10 million, the defendant’s operational role as a storekeeper dealer– I am satisfied that a starting point of 22 years’ imprisonment is just and proportionate.

25.  No further enhancement is required for the cannabis as stated. The totality principle does not require reduction: 22 years is of course a severe sentence, but it suitably reflects the gravity of the offence. The defendant did not learn the lesson after his first drug-trafficking conviction and he must now pay for his misdeeds in the present case.

SENTENCE

26.  For the offence of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs, of which the defendant has been convicted by the jury, he is sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment.