HKSAR v. LEUNG CHUN HUNG

HCCC 8/2025

[2025] HKCFI 6293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 8 OF 2025

______________________

______________________

_______________

S E N T E N C E

_______________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of “possession of a dangerous drug” and one charge of “trafficking in a dangerous drug”, and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 6 January 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, he confirmed his pleas and his agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of Charge 1 state that on the 24th day of January 2024, at the staircase on 15th Floor, Hing Wong Mansion, 79 Tai Kok Tsui Road, Mong Kok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, the defendant had in his possession two plastic bags containing 1.16 grammes of a mixture containing 0.92 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

3.  The particulars of Charge 2 state that on the 24th day of January 2024, at Room 2, 15th Floor, Hing Wong Mansion, 79 Tai Kok Tsui Road, Mong Kok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 610.37 grammes of a mixture containing 429.62 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, 1.64 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.54 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as ‘Ice’) and 1.79 grammes of solid containing 1.57 grammes of cocaine.

4.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows.  On 24 January 2024, police officers carried out an anti‑narcotics operation in the vicinity of Hing Wong Mansion located at 79 Tai Kok Tsui Road, Mong Kok, Kowloon (the “Building”). 

5.  At around 1123 hours on the same day, via the CCTV of the Building, the defendant was seen leaving Room 2 on the 15th Floor of the Building (“Room 2”) and taking lift to the Ground Floor lobby.  PC 15898 then alerted the ambush party including PW1 and PW2. Later, at 1125 hours on the same day, the defendant was intercepted by PW1 at the lift lobby on the Ground Floor.  PW1 found some keys from the defendant. From enquiry, the defendant indicated that the keys found on him could gain access to Room 2.  The defendant was then escorted to 15th Floor for investigation.

6.  At the staircase on the 15th floor of the Building, the defendant confessed to PW1 that he had concealed some dangerous drugs in his underwear.  PW1 conducted a search on the defendant and found two plastic bags containing suspected dangerous drugs on the defendant’s underwear.

After examination by the Government Chemist, it was confirmed that these two bags contained a total weight of 1.16 grammes of a mixture containing 0.92 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (subject matter of the 1st charge). PW1 arrested and cautioned the defendant. Under caution at the scene, the defendant admitted his possession of the heroin for self‑consumption.

7.  In the defendant’s presence, the police, including PW1 and PW2, gained entry to Room 2 by using the keys found on the defendant. 

8.  A search warrant was shown and explained to the defendant.  Upon a search in Room 2, the police found a black metal box on the mattress which contained Exhibits 3 to 10, various packing apparatus, and rental receipts in the defendant’s name.

9.  After the examination by the Government Chemist, it was confirmed that Exhibits 3 to 10 contained the following (subject matter of the 2nd charge):

(i) Exhibit 3: 1 plastic bag containing 350 grammes of a mixture containing 255 grammes of heroin hydrochloride;

(ii) Exhibit 4: 1 plastic bag containing 84.5 grammes of a mixture containing 66.1 grammes of heroin hydrochloride;

(iii) Exhibit 5: 1 plastic bag containing 120 grammes of a mixture containing 87.2 grammes of heroin hydrochloride;

(iv) Exhibit 6: 1 plastic bag containing 46.8 grammes of a mixture containing 13.8 grammes of heroin hydrochloride;

(v) Exhibit 7: 1 plastic bag containing 6.62 grammes of a mixture containing 5.48 grammes of heroin hydrochloride;

(vi) Exhibit 8: 1 plastic bag containing 1.64 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.54 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride;

(vii) Exhibit 9: 1 plastic bag containing 1.79 grammes of a solid containing 1.57 grammes of cocaine;

(viii) Exhibit 10: 5 plastic bags containing a total of 2.45 grammes of a mixture containing 2.04 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

10.  Total amount of narcotics found was, therefore, as follows:

(i) heroin - 429.62 grammes;

(ii) methamphetamine - 1.54 grammes;

(iii) cocaine - 1.57 grammes.

11.  After the search at Room 2, the defendant was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  Under caution at the scene, the defendant admitted that he was going to sell the dangerous drugs found in the room and said that it was none of his girlfriend’s business (there was another person present in Room 2 at the material time).

12.  The defendant further admitted to the following at the video‑recorded interview:

(i) He knew that the suspected dangerous drugs found inside Room 2 were heroin and all of them belonged to him;

(ii) He intended to sell the dangerous drugs to others;

(iii) He packed the drugs;

(iv) As to the receipt of rental payment, the address stated thereon referred to Room 1. He explained that he used to rent Room 1 at first, subsequently he moved to Room 2. The monthly rate was HK$4,000, and he had been residing there for around three to four months;

(v) Money in the sum of HK$5,630 was found on him at the time of arrest. He explained that those were his savings from his previous job as a warehouse keeper in the airport. He was unemployed at the time of arrest.

13.  The quantity of heroin found in Room 2 could have been sold at street level to drug abusers for HK$455,946.  The quantity of methamphetamine found in Room 2 could have been sold at street level to drug abusers for HK$835.  The quantity of cocaine found in Room 2 could have been sold at street level to drug abusers for HK$1,776 (powder) or HK$2,395 (crack).

14.  As to the personal background of the defendant, the defendant is aged 50.  He was born in Hong Kong.  The defendant is single.  He comes from a working class family in that his father worked as a security guard until retirement, while his mother worked as a factory worker until five years ago. 

15.  The defendant has three siblings, two elder sisters and one elder brother.  His father passed away in 2003.  The defendant, after completion of his Form 3 studies at a secondary school, joined the labour force as an air-conditioner apprentice at the age of 16. 

16.  As far as criminal record is concerned, the defendant has 18 previous convictions, nine of which were for possession of dangerous drugs.  The defendant also has three previous convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs, recorded in respectively 1999, 2004, and the last one also in 2004, and for which the defendant was sentenced to respectively 16 months’, 20 months’, and 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

17.  In November 2023, the defendant all of a sudden came to know that his girlfriend was pregnant. The defendant’s friend, called ‘Ah Chiu’, from whom he purchased drugs, knowing the defendant’s financial hardship and difficulties, suggested to the defendant to assist him to deal with the drugs.  The defendant was promised HK$20,000 as initial reward, and the more the defendant helps, the better deal would be reached between them.

18.  Realising the arrival of his newborn baby and the imminence of the Lunar Chinese New Year, the defendant succumbed to Ah Chiu’s temptation by foolishly assisting him to deal with the drugs.

19.  I shall deal first with the sentence on Charge 2, the charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs.  The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph  [2021] 1 HKLR 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 drug 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 the 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 matter 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”.

20.  Regarding the first step, the task is to identify the appropriate range applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned.  In the present case, the narcotic content of the total quantity of dangerous drugs seized at Room 2 were 429.62 grammes of heroin, 1.54 grammes of ‘Ice’, and 1.57 grammes of cocaine.  The total quantity of narcotic was 432.73 grammes of drugs.

21.  In HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the guideline bracket for a quantity of 429.62 grammes of heroin is 12 to 16 years’ imprisonment.  According to HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3), the guideline bracket for a quantity of 1.54 grammes of ‘Ice’ is 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment, and for a quantity of 1.57 grammes of cocaine is 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment.

22.  As three different kinds of drugs were involved with a combined weight of 432.73 grammes, in order to assist me in identifying the overall starting point of the offences, the “Absurdity Test”, “Ratio Test” and “Conversion Test”, as explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk-leong, CACC 318/2013 (Judgment dated 8 April 2014), have been conducted, with the following results: 16 years and 3.9 months under the Absurdity Test; 15 years and 1.3 months under the Ratio Test; and 15 years and 1.9 months under the Conversion Test.

23.  Having considered the above results in the round and taking into account that more than one type of dangerous drug is involved, I consider that the starting point of 15 years and 2 months would be appropriate in the present case.  That is purely based on the quantity and types of drugs involved, before any consideration of the defendant’s role in the offence.

24.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, my assessment should be based upon the evidence before the court, whether by admission or by direct or circumstantial evidence, see Herry Jane Yusuph, supra, paragraphs 58 and 61.  From the Summary of Facts as admitted by the defendant, clearly, the defendant was engaged in the actual (or direct) trafficking of the dangerous drugs, as opposed to only being a courier or storekeeper, as explained in Herry Jane Yusuph at paragraphs 61 to 63.  He was responsible for packing and selling the drugs.

25.  Third, in view of my aforesaid finding of the defendant’s role and culpability, I consider that a total sentence of 15 years and 11 months’ imprisonment would be the appropriate overall notional sentence after trial for Charge 2.

26.  Fourth, I consider that there is one aggravating feature which would enhance the notional sentence after trial.  The defendant has three previous convictions of trafficking in a dangerous drug.  For that, I would enhance the notional sentence after trial by 9 months to become 16 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

27.  Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is his timely guilty plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount. Accordingly, the defendant’s overall sentence on Charge 2 is reduced to 11 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.

28.  I turn now to Charge 1.  The drug involved is 1.16 grammes of a mixture containing 0.92 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.  I would adopt a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment, and reduce it by one-third to 8 months’ imprisonment for his guilty plea.

29.  Taking into account the totality principle, I order that the 8-month sentence on Charge 1 is to run wholly concurrently with the sentence on Charge 2.  In my view, for that minute quantity of heroin, it would not have made a material difference even if it is added to the quantity under Charge 2 for trafficking.

30.  Finally, I consider that an overall sentence of 11 years and 1 month’s imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and in the circumstances of the defendant.

31.  So the total sentence which the defendant has to serve is 11 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.