HKSAR v. NGUYEN DUY QUAN

HCCC 79/2025

[2026] HKCFI 180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 79 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of “Attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug” and one charge of “Using a forged identity card”, and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 6 March 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed his plea and his agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of offence regarding Charge 1 state that on 27 September 2023, at Unit 5, Room 48, 4^th Floor, Man Fai Building, Nos. 25-47 Man Yuen Street, Jordan, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, the defendant attempted to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely 125.3198 kilogrammes of cannabis, in herbal form. 

3.  The particulars of offence regarding Charge 2 state that on 27 September 2023, outside Man Cheong Street Refuse Collection Point, Jordan, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, the defendant without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, used a forged Hong Kong Identity Card, namely an identity card bearing number G323240(8)  in the name of Yau Man-yiu. 

4.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows. On 20 September 2023, the Customs selected a container originating from Canada for examination at the Customs Cargo Examination Compound, and the container was found to have comprised 13 consignments. 

5.  On 22 September 2023, the Customs requested to examine one of the 13 consignments which was labelled to contain dried fruits and nuts.  According to the bill of lading, the consignee was Yau Man-yiu with an address at “48, 9/F Man Cheong Bldg, 41-48 Man Wai Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong”, and the contact party for cargo release was Winstar Global Logistics Limited (“Winstar”). 

6.  On 25 September 2023, upon examination of the said consignment, 13 carton boxes (marked with 1 to 13)  containing a total of 257 packets containing 125.3198 kilogrammes of cannabis, in herbal form, were found.  The carton boxes were later restored to their original state with dummy herbs for conducting a controlled delivery operation. 

7.  On 27 September 2023, CO17413, disguised as the deliveryman, phoned the recipient’s number as provided by Winstar to arrange for a delivery.  The recipient male spoke in non-fluent Punti.  He confirmed that the recipient’s address was at Man Cheong Building in Jordan, and he would bring the goods up himself.  He was reminded to bring the recipient’s Hong Kong Identity Card. 

8.  At about 11.02 am, CO17413 arrived outside Man Cheong Street Refuse Collection Point, Jordan.  A male (later known as the defendant)  approached him with an empty blue trolley and presented a Hong Kong Identity Card bearing number G323240(8)  in the name of Yau Man-yiu (“the Card”)  for receiving the consignment.  Upon verification of the identity, the defendant signed the acknowledgment of receipt and brought the consignment to Room 48, 4^th Floor, Man Fai Building, No 25-47 Man Yuen Street, Jordan (“Room 48”). 

9.  At about 11.46 am, when the defendant was leaving Room 48, he was intercepted by two Customs officers.  He was arrested for contravening the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, and he said, inter alia, the following under caution: 

(1)  he did not know who owned the consignment and he was only responsible for collecting it;

(2)  the consignment would just be placed in Room 48 and he did not know how they would be handled; and

(3)  he would receive HK$2,000 for collecting the consignment.

10.  Upon a search, inter alia, a bunch of three keys, a Form 8 recognizance belonging to the defendant and the Card were found and seized from the defendant. 

11.  At about 11.51 am, the defendant was escorted back to Room 48 for further investigation.  Upon entering Unit 5 in Room 48 (“Unit 5”)  with the keys found on him, the 13 carton boxes were all found on the blue trolley near the toilet and three of which were cut-opened. 

12.  As at September 2023, the estimated street value of all cannabis involved in this case was HK$22,306,924.40 (calculated at HK$178 per gramme). 

13.  The Card was sent to the Government Laboratory for examination by forensic scientist Dr Lee Wai-kit.  Dr Lee opined that the Card was a forged one. 

14.  The defendant now accepts and admits that, at the material time, he attempted to unlawfully traffic in all the cannabis found at Unit 5 and he, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, used a forged Hong Kong Identity Card, namely the Card, outside Man Cheong Street Refuse Collection Point, Jordan. 

15.  Regarding the personal background of the defendant, the defendant is now 44 years of age, divorced, and he was born in Haiphong in Vietnam.  He first came to Hong Kong in 2013 and was repatriated back to Vietnam in the same year.  He came to Hong Kong again in 2014 and lodged a non-refoulement claim immediately upon his arrival and has been staying in Hong Kong since then, while his family (except his elder sister)  remains in Vietnam.  His father passed away in 1990 and his mother (aged 67, a housewife)  is suffering from heart disease and is wheelchair bound.  The defendant got divorced in 2007 and has lost contact with his ex-wife, but he remains in touch with their 21-year-old son, who is now studying in a university in Vietnam. 

16.  The defendant had received education up to Grade 7 level in Vietnam.  He then worked as a chef for over 10 years, earning approximately an equivalent of HK$2,000 to HK$3,000 per month.  He would contribute HK$1,000 to his mother every month when he was in employment.  He has been relying on assistance from ISS since he came to Hong Kong. 

17.  The defendant was aged 42 at the time of the offences.  He had committed the offences, I am told, due to financial difficulty as he needed HK$100,000 for his mother’s medical expenses.  He is now said to be very remorseful and deeply regrets his wrongdoing.  He wishes to return to Vietnam as soon as possible and fulfil his filial duties to take care of his elderly mother upon his release. 

18.  The defendant has three previous convictions, none of which is related to dangerous drugs. 

19.  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 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”. 

20.  Regarding step one, the narcotic content of the dangerous drug involved in Charge 1 is 125.3198 kilogrammes of cannabis in herbal form.  Under the guidelines in HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329 at paragraph 97, trafficking in over 90,000 grammes of herbal cannabis would attract an imprisonment of 120 months (ie 10 years)  or above. 

21.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a courier or storekeeper, responsible for collecting the consignment of cannabis.  However, this case clearly involves an international element.  This is an important factor when assessing the role and culpability of the defendant in order to identify the appropriate starting point for sentence.  I have to bear in mind the quantity of narcotic being introduced into Hong Kong, which not only increases the supply of the particular dangerous drug but causes great harm to the community: see HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho, supra, at paragraph 74.

22.  Third, for 125.3198 kilogrammes of cannabis, I would adopt an initial starting point of 10 years and 9 months’ imprisonment based solely on the quantity of the dangerous drug involved.  For the international element of this case as held above, I would increase the notional sentence after trial by 6 months, taking it to 11 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. 

23.  Fourth, regarding aggravating factors, the defendant accepts that the fact that he was a Form 8 recognizance holder is an aggravating feature in the case.  For this aggravating factor, I would enhance the notional sentence after trial by a further 6 months: see HKSAR v Ali Saif [2018] 6 HKC 19 at paragraph 17.  This will take the notional sentence after trial to 11 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. 

24.  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 is sentenced to 7 years and 10 months’ imprisonment on Charge 1. 

25.  Regarding Charge 2, according to HKSAR v Tran Viet Thanh [2012] 1 HKLRD 903, where a defendant who had entered or remained in Hong Kong lawfully was in possession of a forged identity card, the standard sentence was 12 months’ imprisonment. But if he produced or used a forged identity card or an identity card belonging to another to conceal his identity, work illegally or unlawfully further his stay in Hong Kong, the starting point upon a plea of guilty could be enhanced to 15 months’ imprisonment. 

26.  Based on the facts of the present case, I would sentence the defendant to 15 months’ imprisonment on Charge 2. 

27.  Taking into account the totality principle, I would order 3 months of the sentence on Charge 2 to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1, and 12 months to run concurrently.  This would make a total sentence of 8 years and 1 month’s imprisonment. 

28.  Finally, I consider that a total sentence of 8 years and 1 month imprisonment is a fair, just, and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and in the circumstances of the defendant.  That sentence is to run consecutively to the sentence which the defendant is presently serving for case number ST/3444/17 concerning the offences of remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration and breach of a deportation/expulsion order, which are distinct and separate to the present case.