HKSAR v. CHAN WING LOK AND ANOTHER

HCCC 81/2025

[2026] HKCFI 181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 81 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The 1^st and 2^nd defendants pleaded guilty to the following charges, and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 10 March 2025.

2.  The Statement of Offence and Particulars of Offence of the charges stated as follows:

(1)  Charge 1 (against both defendants)  - Conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug: between an unknown day in January 2023 and 13 March 2023, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, the 1^st and 2^nd defendants conspired together and with an unknown person, to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as ‘Ice’).

(2)  Charge 2 (against the 1^st defendant)  - Trafficking in a dangerous drug: on 14 March 2023, outside Room 1307, 13th Floor, Wah Woon House, Ching Wah Court,

No. 22 Tsing Chin Street, Tsing Yi, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the 1^st defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 299 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 296 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

(3)  Charge 3 (against both defendants)  - Trafficking in a dangerous drug: on 14 March 2023, at Room 1307, 13th Floor, Wah Woon House, Ching Wah Court, No. 22 Tsing Chin Street, Tsing Yi, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the 1^st and 2^nd defendants unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 686 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 683 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

3.  The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.  Before this court, both the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant have confirmed their pleas and their agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

4.  As the Summary of Facts so admitted by the defendants provides the essential background and evidence for the determination of the sentences in the present case, it is necessary for me to set out the same in full.

5.  On 14 March 2023 at around 12 pm, the police conducted an anti-narcotics operation and started to lay ambush in the vicinity of Room 1307, 13th Floor, Wah Woon House (the “Building”), Ching Wah Court, 22 Tsing Chin Street, Tsing Yi, New Territories, Hong Kong (the “Premises”).

6.  At around 4 pm, the 1^st and 2^nd defendants left the Premises and were immediately intercepted by the police for further inquiries.  Between 4.01 pm and 4.04 pm, a body search was conducted on the 1^st defendant at the lift lobby of 13th Floor of the Building.  Upon the body search, a plastic bag containing 16 resealable plastic bags containing a total of 299 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 296 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“E3”)  was found from the left front pocket of the 1^st defendant’s jacket.

7.  At around 4.05 pm, the 1^st defendant was arrested for trafficking in a dangerous drug.  Under caution, the 1^st defendant stated that he had helped “Mo Gor” bring back some ‘Ice’ in order to repackage them and further distributed them upon his further instructions in order to get some “quick money”.  He asked the police for an opportunity.  The 1^st defendant subsequently signed on the notebook to confirm the accuracy and voluntariness of the said cautioned statements which were post-recorded on the notebook.

8.  Upon a further body search on the 1^st defendant, an access card to the Premises, HK$900 cash, a wallet, an octopus card and a mobile phone were seized from the 1^st defendant.

9.  At around 4.08 pm, the search warrant was executed and the police used the access card seized from the 1^st defendant to enter the Premises (which was around 350 square feet with one living room, one bathroom and two bedrooms).  Subsequently, a house search was conducted by the police in the presence of the 1^st and 2^nd defendants.  The police seized, inter alia, the following from the Premises: 

Table at the living room

(a)  Tenancy agreement of the Premises dated 4 November 2022 which stated that the monthly rental payment was HK$12,800;

(b)  A billing statement of the management fees of the Premises dated 1 February 2023;

(c)  A resealable plastic bag containing a total of HK$43,750 cash;

Table at the 1^st defendant’s bedroom

(d)  A plastic box containing 12 resealable plastic bags;

(e)  A resealable plastic bag containing seven resealable plastic bags;

(f)  Two electronic scales;

(g)  Three spoons;

(h)  Two serving trays;

(i)  A lighter;

(j)  A marker pen;

Second compartment of the cupboard at the 1^st defendant’s bedroom

(k)  A carton box containing:

(i)  15 transparent resealable plastic bags (with red stars marked thereon)  containing a total of 268 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 267 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“E31”);

(ii)  15 transparent resealable plastic bags (with red stars marked thereon)  containing a total of 256 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 255 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“E32”);

(iii)  Eight transparent resealable plastic bags (with red stars marked thereon)  containing a total of 162 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 161 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“E33”).

10.  At around 5.25 pm, the 1^st defendant was arrested for an additional charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.  Under caution, the 1^st defendant stated that he only helped “Mo Gor” distribute ‘Ice’ to others as he wanted to earn some “quick money”.  The 1^st defendant subsequently signed on a notebook to confirm the accuracy and voluntariness of the said cautioned statements which were post-recorded on the notebook.

11.  Simultaneously, the 2^nd defendant was also arrested for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug.  Under caution, the 2^nd defendant stated that the ‘Ice’ belonged to “Ah Lok” (ie the 1^st defendant)  and he only sometimes helped the 1^st defendant distribute them in order to earn some “quick money”.  A body search was subsequently conducted on the 2^nd defendant, a wallet containing HK$5,750 cash, an access card to the Premises and a mobile phone were seized from him.

12.  The estimated street value of the dangerous drugs seized from the 1^st defendant and the Premises was around HK$200,928 and HK$460,992 respectively. 

Cautioned VRIs of the 1^st and 2^nd defendants

13.  Under caution, the 1^st defendant stated, inter alia, the following in his video-recorded interview (“VRI”): 

Background

(a)  The 2^nd defendant was his secondary school classmate. He had lived at the Premises together with the 2^nd defendant since January 2023;

(b)  He did not rent the Premises and did not pay the rental payment himself. Regarding the access card to the Premises, he recalled that he had followed some instructions and picked it up from a certain location. He had the passcode to the Premises. He knew that others would sometimes place some ‘Ice’ at the Premises;

(c)  In relation to the HK$43,750 cash seized, he admitted that the said money was given to him by “Ah Mo” as the rental payment as they might move to Tuen Mun;

(d)  He and the 2^nd defendant did not have the habit of consuming drugs. He was unemployed at the material time of the offence while the 2^nd defendant used to work at a restaurant;

1^st Count

(e)  He became acquainted with “Ah Mo” through “Ah Lam”, whom he had first encountered at Lan Kwai Fong in around September or October 2022. After a few encounters, “Ah Lam” asked him whether he wanted to earn some “quick money” and invited him to help distributing goods;

(f)  In October 2022, “Ah Mo” first contacted him. Afterwards, “Ah Mo” (instead of “Ah Lam”)  directly called him via WhatsApp to give him instructions;

(g)  He admitted that he lived with the 2^nd defendant at the Premises since January 2023 as they both worked for “Ah Mo” to deal with ‘Ice’. He himself was the person who recruited the 2^nd defendant to join the business;

(h)  He admitted that since around January 2023, “Ah Mo” started to give instructions to him and asked him to pick up ‘Ice’ and bring them back to the Premises for repackaging. Both of them then repackaged the ‘Ice’ at the Premises;

(i)  He and the 2^nd defendant would then take photos of the repackaged ‘Ice’ and send the photos to “Ah Mo”. They would wait for instructions from “Ah Mo” in respect of delivery of the repackaged ‘Ice’;

(j)  On the last occasion (which was around 1 to 2 weeks ago), he was instructed to take the goods to the rubbish bin at Maritime Square 1. He took some photos after placing the goods and sent the photos to “Ah Mo”. He had left the scene after sending the photos to “Ah Mo” and did not observe who had picked up the ‘Ice’. He did not receive any money from the person who later picked up the ‘Ice’;

(k)  He admitted that he had conducted the same routine of delivering ‘Ice’ to the usual location of the rubbish bin at Maritime Square 1 on a few previous occasions. He sometimes did it alone, but sometimes did it with the 2^nd defendant. “Ah Mo” usually paid him HK$5,000 after each delivery and placed the sum in a red packet for him (which was also placed in or near the rubbish bin at Maritime Square 1)  for him to pick up. Afterwards, he usually gave the 2^nd defendant around HK$1,000 to HK$2,000;

(l)  Regarding the paraphernalia found at the Premises, he admitted that (i)  the resealable plastic bags were used to repackage the ‘Ice’; (ii)  the electronic balances were used to weigh the ‘Ice’; (iii)  the plastic spoons were used to scoop up the ‘Ice’; (iv)  the serving trays were used to contain the ‘Ice’; (v)  the marker pen was used to draw the stars on the small packets containing the ‘Ice’; and (vi)  the lighter was used to seal the plastic bags and for smoking;

(m)  Both he himself and the 2^nd defendant were in charge of repacking the drugs, and they did it either in his bedroom or at the kitchen of the Premises. Pursuant to the instructions of “Ah Mo”, the weight of the bigger packet of ‘Ice’ would not exceed 27.5 grammes, whilst the weight of the smaller packet of ‘Ice’ would not exceed 13.5 grammes;

(n)  Apart from the 2^nd defendant and he himself, no one else would have access to the ‘Ice’;

2^nd Count

(o)  He confirmed the accuracy of his statements (in respect of Charge 2)  made under caution at the scene upon his arrest;

(p)  On the date of the offence, when he and the 2^nd defendant left the Premises together, the 2^nd defendant and his girlfriend were about to head to dinner whilst he planned to go to Maritime Square to deliver the ‘Ice’ to another person;

(q)  He admitted that E3 belonged to him, and the drugs were ‘Ice’. E3 was delivered to him by an unknown person. “Ah Mo” told him that someone would drive over and place the goods (ie, E3)  near the rubbish bin at the exit of Maritime Square 1. “Ah Mo” had sent him a photo and asked him to pick up the goods himself. When he first picked up the drugs, they were placed together in a plastic box;

(r)  He was instructed to repackage them into 16 packets. He claimed that the 2^nd defendant had helped him repackage the drugs into 16 packets;

3^rd Count

(s)  He confirmed the accuracy of his statements (in respect of Charge 3)  made under caution at the scene upon his arrest; and

(t)  He admitted that he resided at the bedroom where E31 to E33 were found. He also admitted that he knew E31 to E33 were ‘Ice’, and they were brought back to the Premises by himself, together with the 2^nd defendant or the 2^nd defendant solely. He was instructed to draw stars on the packaging of E31 to E33.

14.  Under caution, the 2^nd defendant stated, inter alia, the following in his VRI: 

(a)  He was a cook at a Chinese restaurant and earned about HK$14,000 monthly;

(b)  The 1^st defendant was his secondary school classmate since Form 1 and had been his flatmate at the Premises. He was aware that the 1^st defendant was unemployed at the material time of the offence;

(c)  As the 1^st defendant knew that he did not earn much from his job, the 1^st defendant persuaded him to join his business to earn some “quick money” in late December 2022 or early January 2023. The 1^st defendant promised that someone would pay for his living expenses and give him money and thus agreed to take up the work;

(d)  He moved in the Premises to live with the 1^st defendant on about 4 February 2023 in order to facilitate their dealings. Both he and the 1^st defendant had access to the Premises as their fingerprints were inputted into the digital lock of the door of the Premises;

(e)  In respect of the HK$43,750 cash seized from the Premises, he stated that the cash belonged to the 1^st defendant and should have been earnings from trafficking drugs;

(f)  He and the 1^st defendant did not have the habit of consuming drugs;

1^st Count

(g)  For the first or second transactions, he was told to deliver something wrapped in tissue paper. The 1^st defendant had told him the items wrapped in tissue papers were drugs but he did not know what type of drugs they were;

(h)  For each delivery, the 1^st defendant would tell him the features of their client and ask him to wait for the client at the park. After the client paid him, he would give the money to the 1^st defendant and the 1^st defendant would then give him a portion of the money;

(i)  He admitted that he had conducted three transactions for the 1^st defendant. He agreed to deliver the drugs to the 1^st defendant’s client for him as he wanted to make “quick money”;

(j)  For his first transaction, he delivered a large packet of drugs (which was over 20 grammes of drugs)  to Tsing Yi Park at around 3 pm or 4 pm. He received $8,000 from the client and earned HK$2,500 in return;

(k)  For his second transaction, he delivered a larger packet of drugs (which was over 20 grammes of drugs)  to an unknown male at the Tsing Yi Promenade (near Cheung Fat)  at around 3 pm or 4 pm on or about 27 or 28 February 2023. He earned HK$2,000 in return;

(l)  For his third transaction, he delivered a smaller packet of drugs (which was around 10 grammes of drugs)  to the identical unknown male (ie as the second transaction)  at Tsing Yi Park on 5 March 2023. He earned HK$1,000 in return;

(m)  For the delivery of a larger packet of drugs (which was over 20 grammes), the client would pay him HK$8,000 and he would earn around HK$2,000 in return (including taxi fees). For delivery of a smaller packet of drugs (which would be around 10 grammes), the client would pay him HK$4,000 and he would earn around $1,000 in return. He would give the remaining amount received from the client to the 1^st defendant;

(n)  When the 1^st defendant was not available, he would help him deliver the ‘Ice’ (which were originally placed inside the 1^st defendant’s bedroom)  to a certain location. The 1^st defendant usually paid him afterwards after he returned to the Premise; and

3^rd Count

(o)  He confirmed the accuracy of his statements (in respect of Charge 3)  made under caution at the scene upon his arrest.

15.  Upon digital forensic examination of the mobile phone of the 1^st defendant, the following, inter alia, were discovered: 

Between the 1^st defendant and “Mo Gor”

(a)  On 18 February 2023, “Mo Gor” instructed the 1^st defendant to draw stars on the plastic bags. In reply, the 1^st defendant sent “Mo Gor” a photo of a large bag of drugs with a star marked thereon;

(b)  On 21 February 2023, the 1^st defendant sent “Mo Gor” photos of (i)  a large bag of drugs weighing 495.4 grammes on an electronic balance; (ii)  a resealable plastic bag weighing 4.4 grammes on the balance; and (iii)  a large bag of drugs weighing 500.1 grammes on the balance;

(c)  On 22 and 23 February 2023, the 1^st defendant sent “Mo Gor” photos of (i)  a large block of drugs (with packaging)  weighing 1,018 grammes on balance; (ii)  a large block of drugs (without packaging)  weighing 998.7 grammes on the balance; (iii)  the packaging weighing 19.0 grammes on the balance; (iv)  16 large packets of drugs; and (v)  41 smaller packets of drugs. In response, “Mo Gor” enquired about the remaining amount of drugs after packing 41 small packets and 16 large packets of drugs and instructed the 1^st defendant to draw stars on the plastic bags containing the drugs;

(d)  On 24 February 2023, “Mo Gor” sent the 1^st defendant a deposit receipt which stated that HK$5,000 had been deposited into the 1^st defendant’s bank account;

(e)  On 25 February 2023, the 1^st defendant sent “Mo Gor” photos of (i)  a plastic bag containing a large block of drugs weighing 1,015.6 grammes on the balance; (ii)  a plastic bag containing a large block of drugs weighing 1,037.2 grammes on the balance; and (iii)  plastic bags containing drugs respectively weighing 499.0 and 509.0 grammes on the balance;

(f)  On 27 February 2023, the 1^st defendant sent “Mo Gor” photographs of (i)  a plastic box containing drugs weighing 997.3 grammes on the balance; (ii)  a plastic bag containing drugs weighing 1,010.0 grammes on the balance; (iii)  chunks of drugs respectively weighing 150.0 and 153.0 grammes on the balance; and (iv)  a plastic bag containing drugs weighing 162.0 grammes on the balance;

(g)  On 1 March 2023, the 1^st defendant sent “Mo Gor” photos of (i)  plastic bags containing drugs respectively weighing 1,009.9 and 1,005.3 grammes on the balance; (ii)  plastic boxes containing drugs respectively weighing 998.1 and 996.5 grammes on the balance; and (iii)  plastic bags weighing 11.3 grammes on the balance;

(h)  On 4 March 2023, the 1^st defendant sent “Mo Gor” photos of (i)  a plastic bag containing drugs weighing 1,016.7 grammes on the balance; (ii)  a plastic box containing drugs weighing 998.1 grammes on the balance; and (iii)  plastic bags weighing 18.5 grammes on the balance;

(i)  On 5 March 2023, the 1^st defendant sent “Mo Gor” photos of (i)  a plastic bag containing drugs weighing 1,006.1 grammes on the balance; (ii)  a plastic box containing drugs weighing 998.4 grammes on the balance; and (iii)  plastic bags weighing 7.0 grammes on the balance;

(j)  On 6 March 2023, “Mo Gor” sent the 1^st defendant a photo of a packet of drugs weighing 28.65 grammes on the balance and questioned him about the deficiency. In response, the 1^st defendant stated that the balance might not be accurate since no one would dare to take that away;

(k)  On 6 March 2023, the 1^st defendant sent “Mo Gor” photos of (i)  a plastic bag containing drugs weighing 508.9 grammes on the balance; and (ii)  plastic bags weighing 8.7 grammes on the balance;

(l)  On 7 March 2023, the 1^st defendant sent “Mo Gor” photos of (i)  plastic bags containing drugs respectively weighing 1,010.0 and 1,010.1 grammes on the balance; (ii)  plastic boxes containing drugs respectively weighing 997.3 and 997.5 grammes on the balance; and (iii)  plastic bags respectively weighing 12.8 and 12.7 grammes on the balance. “Mo Gor” specifically instructed the 1^st defendant to pack a packet containing a big block of drugs weighing 125 grammes. In response, the 1^st defendant sent “Mo Gor” a photo of a plastic bag containing drugs weighing 125.4 grammes on the balance;

Between the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant

(m)  On 22 February 2023, the 2^nd defendant sent the 1^st defendant a photo of three packets of dangerous drugs. In response, the 1^st defendant instructed the 2^nd defendant to give them to “Ka Lam” on an urgent basis;

(n)  On 1 March 2023, the 2^nd defendant sent the 1^st defendant a photo of three packets of dangerous drugs. The 1^st defendant told the 2^nd defendant that it should be three big packets and one small packet instead and criticised him for being irresponsible. The 1^st defendant also instructed the 2^nd defendant to apologise to the recipient and tell the recipient that they will compensate him in return; and

(o)  On 11 March 2023, the 2^nd defendant sent the 1^st defendant a voice message stating that the two packets of drugs were uneven as one packet contained 29.67 grammes while the other packet weighed 29.99 grammes. In reply, the 1^st defendant told the 2^nd defendant that he might have messed up when mixing the drugs and asked the 2^nd defendant to fix it.

16.  Upon a digital forensic examination of the mobile phone of the 2^nd defendant, the following, inter alia, were discovered:  

Between the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant

(a)  On 13 February 2023, the 2^nd defendant sent the 1^st defendant a photo of a packet of drugs weighing 18.31 grammes on the balance. In response, the 1^st defendant stated that it should be 15.3 grammes instead of 18.3 grammes. The 2^nd defendant then sent the 1^st defendant a packet of drugs weighing 15.33 grammes on the balance;

(b)  On 16 February 2023, the 2^nd defendant asked the 1^st defendant for jobs as he needed money;

(c)  The messages stated in the last paragraph (m)  to (o)  above; and

Between the 2^nd defendant and “Mo Gor”

(d)  On 4 March 2023, “Mo Gor” asked the 2^nd defendant about his whereabouts and asked him to hurry up.

17.  The 1^st and 2^nd defendants now admit and accept that between an unknown day in January 2023 and 13 March 2023, both dates inclusive, they conspired with an unknown person, to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely methamphetamine hydrochloride (1^st Count).

18.  The 1^st defendant now admits and accepts that at the material time of the offence, he had knowledge of 296 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride seized and was knowingly in possession of all the said dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking in their entirety (2^nd Count).

19.  Furthermore, the 1^st and 2^nd defendants now admit and accept that at the material time of the offence, they had knowledge of 683 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride seized and were knowingly in possession of all the said dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking in their entirety (3^rd Count).

20.  Regarding the personal background of the defendants, the 1^st defendant was born on 21 April 2006 in Hong Kong and was thus 16 years and 11 months old at the time of the offences.  He is single and was educated up to Secondary Form 3 level.  The 1^st defendant took up odd jobs including kitchen work after leaving school, but was unemployed at the time of the offences.  The 1^st defendant has two previous criminal convictions which are unrelated to dangerous drugs.

21.  The 2^nd defendant is 19 years old and single.  He was born in Hong Kong.  He lived with his parents and younger brother.  The 2^nd defendant has no previous criminal conviction.  The 2^nd defendant was educated up to Secondary Form 4 level.  He then worked as a cook earning around HK$14,000 per month.  I am told that due to the COVID pandemic, the 2^nd defendant’s parents and the 2^nd defendant all had unstable income, and in order to help out with the family expenses, the 2^nd defendant listened to the 1^st defendant hoping to earn “quick money” to assist in the family’s financial situation.

22.  I shall deal firstly with the sentences on the trafficking charges (ie Charge 2 and Charge 3).  I turn to the 1^st defendant before considering the position of the 2^nd defendant.

23.  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 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 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”.

24.  Regarding the first step concerning the 1^st defendant, looking at Charge 2 and Charge 3 together, the narcotic contents of the total quantity of dangerous drugs involved (ie E3 and E31 to E33)  was 979 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 18 to 20 years’ imprisonment:  see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 at paragraph 66.

25.  Second, concerning the defendants’ role and culpability, from the Summary of Facts as admitted by the defendants, clearly, the defendants were 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, supra, at paragraph 61 to 63.  The defendants were involved in the repackaging of the drug, delivery of the repackaged drug to the clients and receiving the purchase price from the clients.

26.  Third, for 979 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a notional sentence after trial of 18 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.  In view of my aforesaid finding of the 1^st defendant’s role and culpability, I consider that a total sentence of 19 years and 4 months’ imprisonment would be the appropriate overall notional sentence after trial for Charge 2 and Charge 3.

27.  Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating feature which would enhance the notional sentence after trial.

28.  Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the 1^st defendant’s sentence is his timely guilty plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount. Accordingly, the 1^st defendant’s overall sentence on Charge 2 and Charge 3 is reduced to 12 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

29.  To achieve the totality of 12 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, I sentence the 1^st defendant as follows on Charge 2 and Charge 3: 

(1)  The 1^st defendant is sentenced to 10 years and 3 months’ imprisonment on Charge 2;

(2)  The 1^st defendant is sentenced to 12 years and 5 months’ imprisonment on Charge 3;

(3)  I order that 5 months of the sentence on Charge 2 are to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 3, thus resulting in the total sentence of 12 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

30.  I turn now to the sentence of the 2^nd defendant on Charge 3.  Regarding the first step, for 683 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the applicable guideline tariff band is again that of 18 to 20 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3), supra, at paragraph 66.

31.  Second, as held above, I find that the 2^nd defendant was engaged in the actual (or direct)  trafficking of the dangerous drugs, as opposed to only being a courier or a storekeeper.

32.  Third, for 683 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a notional sentence after trial of 18 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.  In view of my aforesaid finding of the 2^nd defendant’s role and culpability, I consider that a sentence of 18 years and 8 months’ imprisonment would be the appropriate notional sentence after trial for Charge 3.

33.  Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating feature which would enhance the notional sentence after trial.

34.  Fifth, again, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the 2^nd defendant’s sentence on Charge 3 is his timely guilty plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount.  Accordingly, the 2^nd defendant is sentenced to 12 years and 5 months’ imprisonment on Charge 3.

35.  I turn now to the conspiracy to traffic charge (ie Charge 1).  Again, I deal first with the 1^st defendant, before considering the position of the 2^nd defendant.

36.  Under Charge 1, the amount of methamphetamine hydrochloride involved has not been expressly particularised.  In HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing [2017] 5 HKLRD 799 at paragraph 33, Macrae JA (as he then was)  said this: 

“33. As the court in Chan Kam Loi explained, where a conspiracy to traffic in an unspecified quantity of dangerous drugs is concerned, the sentencing court must do its best to arrive at a starting point based on inferences and assumptions properly derived from the particular facts in the case. Those facts, and the inferences and assumptions from which they derive, will vary from case to case. We would add that, unless the facts which give rise to the inferences and assumptions are clear-cut, they will inevitably lean in favour of the defence.”

37.  In the present case, from the admissions made by the 1^st defendant in his VRI and the content of the messages exchanged between the 1^st defendant and “Mo Gor” retrieved from the 1^st defendant’s mobile phone, it is clear that during the course of the conspiracy covered by Charge 1, the 1^st defendant had engaged in the dealing of ‘Ice’ on multiple occasions, and as expressly accepted by the 1^st defendant through counsel and not disputed by the prosecution, at least 1.5 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’ had been dealt with on those occasions.

38.  Doing the best I can, I consider that a sentence of 20 years and 6 months’ imprisonment would be the appropriate notional sentence after trial for the 1^st defendant on Charge 1 (20 years being the appropriate starting point based on quantity, ie 1.5 kilogrammes of ‘Ice’, with 6 months added for the enhanced role of the 1^st defendant beyond being a mere courier or storekeeper, resulting in a notional sentence after trial of 20 years and 6 months).   

39.  After applying a one-third discount for his guilty plea, I sentence the 1^st defendant to 13 years and 8 months’ imprisonment on Charge 1.

40.  Finally, regarding step six of Herry Jane Yusuph and taking into account the totality principle, I consider that for the 1^st defendant, the sentence on Charge 1 on the one hand and the sentences on Charge 2 and Charge 3 on the other should run concurrently, so that the total sentence to be served by the 1^st defendant is 13 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

41.  I turn now to the 2^nd defendant on Charge 1.  From the admissions made by the 2^nd defendant in his VRI and the messages retrieved from the 2^nd defendant’s mobile phone, clearly, the 2^nd defendant was involved in much lesser dealings in drugs pursuant to the conspiracy charged under Charge 1.

42.  Again, doing the best I can, I consider that a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment would be the appropriate notional sentence after trial for the 2^nd defendant on Charge 1.

43.  After applying a one-third discount for his guilty plea, I sentence the 2^nd defendant to 8 years’ imprisonment on Charge 1.

44.  Again, after taking into account the totality principle, I consider that for the 2^nd defendant, the sentence on Charge 1 on the one hand and Charge 3 on the other should run concurrently, so that the total sentence to be served by the 2^nd defendant is 12 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

45.  Finally, I consider that the above sentences are fair, just and balanced sentences in all the circumstances of this case and taking into account the circumstances of the two defendants.