COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to four charges on the 24 April 2025 in Eastern Magistracy and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today, the defendant admits the Summary of Facts and he confirms his pleas.
The defendant called the police to his home on the 27 April 2022. After they arrived in response to his call, they discovered drugs of Charges 1 and 2, as well as the stolen items of Charge 3, and an identity card belonging to another, Charge 4.
Charge 1 accuses the defendant of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely 12.62 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 12.01 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 2.83 grammes of a solid containing 2.45 grammes of ketamine, 0.75 grammes of a solid containing 0.65 grammes of deschloroketamine, 22 tablets, totally weighing 1.82 grammes, containing methoxy-N-methyl-N-isopropyltryptamine and 7 tablets totally weighing 2.58 grammes containing fluoromethamphetamine. He committed this offence on the 27 April 2022 inside Room 1208, Tin Kam House, Shun Tin Estate, Sau Mau Ping, Kowloon.
The defendant also pleaded guilty to Charge 2, possession of a dangerous drug. On the same day in the same premises, he had in his possession, a dangerous drug, namely a bottle containing traces of a liquid containing methamphetamine.
He pleaded guilty to Charge 3, theft, on the same day in the same premises he had stolen property belonging to Chan Wan-ting, including a Bank of China UnionPay Card, a Bank of East Asia MPF membership card, a BCT Industry Choice Card and an IVE student card.
Charge 4 was a possession of an identity card relating to another person. On the same day in the same premises he had in his possession without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, a Hong Kong identity card relating to another person, namely a Pang Cho-yam.
The facts are as follows. At about 7.20 am on the material day, 27 April 2022, the police received a call from the defendant claiming that someone had thrown his mother out of the window. Police officers immediately attended his home and the defendant’s mother opened the door for them. The defendant came out of his room and was in a daze, more than likely a drug-induced daze. When asked if he had called the police, he became very emotional, asked the officers to leave and denied making the call.
When the police entered the premises, the defendant tried to rush into his bedroom and close his door. The police forcefully entered his room. He resisted the police, so he was handcuffed. The police then found the drugs of Charge 1, an ‘Ice’ pipe or bong, an electronic scale, numerous empty transparent resealable plastic bags, syringes and a bag sealer. They found a bottle containing traces of liquid containing methamphetamine, the drugs of Charge 2. In a safe in his room, the police found the items of Charges 3 and 4. The police also found $24,470 and five mobile phones.
Under caution, he claimed he did not sell any of the dangerous drugs found and they were all for his own consumption. Under caution for theft and possession of an identity card relating to another, the defendant claimed he could not recall when he picked up these items, but all items were found on the street.
Mitigation
The defendant is now 39 years old and was unemployed at the time of his arrest. He had previously worked at Standard Chartered Bank. He lived with his mother at the place of his arrest. It appears he has told the police that he began taking ‘Ice’ and other drugs about 25 years ago.
He is not a man with a clear record. He has eight previous convictions from four court appearances and six relate to dangerous drugs. He has one previous for trafficking in dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment in December 2012. His last convictions were in July 2023 when he was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs, possession of equipment fit and intended for smoking, injecting or inhaling dangerous drugs, and possession of Part I poison.
I have received written mitigation, Mr Hui has said all he can possibly say in mitigation on the defendant’s behalf. His best mitigation is his plea at the earliest opportunity.
Sentencing - Charge 1
I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the most recent authority, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, I now consider the said six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.
Those six steps include assessing the gravity of the offence and applicable guideline, identifying the defendant’s role, where within the guideline the defendant should lie, any aggravating factors, any mitigating factors, and lastly, passing a sentence which is fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.
The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guidelines according to the drugs seized. Here there are a significant amount of two types of drugs and a small quantity of three other types of drugs. Let me first deal with the ‘Ice’ and ketamine seized.
Taking into account the latest guideline in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, the starting point for trafficking in ‘Ice’, methamphetamine hydrochloride, between 10 and 70 grammes is 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically, trafficking in 12.01 grammes attracts a starting point of 7 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
The sentencing guideline for ketamine is found in the authority of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, and the starting point for trafficking between 1 to 10 grammes of ketamine is between 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically speaking, a total weight of 2.45 grammes of ketamine here alone will attract a starting point of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
I intend to convert the ketamine found here to ‘Ice’ to find an appropriate starting point. This would be the combined approach which would be fairer to the defendant than the individual approach. I appreciate Mr Hui’s calculations he has submitted in his mitigation.
I take the most appropriate conversion scenario to be that conversion to ‘Ice’, which would attract a starting point of 7 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
As for the other three types of drugs the defendant was trafficking, Mr Hui has asked me to find the quantities de minimis and ignore them for the purposes of sentencing. He suggests that even if those quantities were converted to a drug with the most serious potency, for example ‘Ice’, this would not materially affect the total sentence or starting point.
He does agree that the deschloroketamine is structurally similar to ketamine and here there is 0.65 grammes of it. He agrees that the fluoromethamphetamine is a synthetic stimulant drug of the amphetamine class and therefore related to ‘Ice’. Here there is 7 tablets containing this drug, all weighing a total of 2.58 grammes. The third drug is a psychedelic drug, commonly known as methoxy, and there is 22 tablets containing this drug, weighing a total of 1.82 grammes.
What I do not know is whether an expert would deem them to be more potent or less potent than ketamine and ‘Ice’ respectively, which would affect the calculation of a starting point if I add them to the ‘Ice’ and ketamine here.
However, I do not agree that they were insignificant amounts. After all, in total they come to 5.05 grammes. Of course I bear in mind that two types come in tablet form so I do not know the purity of those other two drugs.
I intend to increase the starting point I mentioned above for Charge 1 to 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment to reflect the other three types of drugs the defendant has admitted trafficking.
I am satisfied that the role of the defendant is one of storekeeper and courier as admitted by the defendant. This is a position at the bottom of the hierarchy of drug traffickers, therefore I find the starting point of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment appropriate in this case.
The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating or an exceptional mitigating factors. I see no such factors in this case. On this occasion I do not intend to take previous criminal record into account as an aggravating factor.
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount. I will take that starting point of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment and reduce it by one-third. The defendant would therefore be sentenced to 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
With the last step of the six steps in mind I consider this sentence to be fair, just and balanced in light of the circumstances of the offence as well as the defendant.
Accordingly for Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 2, I accept Mr Hui’s submission that according to the authorities the starting point of mere possession of dangerous drugs would be 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment. That would be appropriate for mere possession of a quantity of dangerous drugs which a bona fide user would normally have in his possession.
However, there is also the latent risk factor to consider, that is the latent risk to society when drugs are at large. In this case, the defendant is already associated with trafficking the same drug, ‘Ice’. With this charge of possession of dangerous drugs, the latent risk factor can justify an enhancement to a starting point. I intend to take a starting point of 21 months’ imprisonment.
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount. I apply that discount and reduce that starting point of 21 months to 1 year and 2 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 3, there is no evidence that the defendant did not find the wallet and keep those cards as he suggests. There is no evidence that the owner suffered any financial loss as a result of the defendant stealing his cards. However, any loss of cards of this nature can cause a huge inconvenience to their owners, especially financial institution cards. I take a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment. I reduce that by 2 months to reflect the defendant’s plea. The defendant is sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment for Charge 3.
Charge 4, the defendant was found in possession of an identity card related to another. There is no evidence that he used the card in any manner to impersonate the owner or seek any benefit for himself. The Court of Appeal has indicated many years ago that a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment should be imposed where an accused has pleaded guilty.
Therefore I intend to take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment for Charge 4 and reduce it to 12 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea.
I have considered the facts and the totality principle. I have also considered the nature of all the charges. Charges 3 and 4 are distinct and separate from Charges 1 and 2. Therefore, I sentence the defendant as follows:
Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 2, the defendant is sentenced to 1 year and 2 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 3, 4 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 4, 12 months’ imprisonment.
I will order Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently. I will order 1 month of Charge 3 to be served consecutively to Charge 1 and the balance concurrently. I will order 3 months of Charge 4 to be served consecutively to Charge 1 and the balance concurrently.
Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 5 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
You understand?
ACCUSED: Understood.