HKSAR v. LI CHIN-HUNG, CHRIS AND ANOTHER

HCCC 27/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 27 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The 1^st Defendant (D1)  has now pleaded guilty to the following 4 charges (Counts 1-4)  and the 2^nd Defendant (D2)  pleaded guilty to 2 charges (Counts 1-2)  in the Magistracy, and they were committed, on 15 January 2026, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The Defendants confirmed their respective guilty pleas and admissions to the Summary of Facts before me, and their convictions were duly recorded.

2.  The 4 charges are as follows:-

(1)  Charge 1 (against D1 and D2): trafficking in a dangerous drug[1], which alleged that D1 and D2, on 15 August 2023, at Ground Floor, No. 94 Shek Po Tsuen, Yuen Long, New Territories (“Location 1”), unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 3,544 grammes of a mixture, in the form of a block, containing 2,866 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

(2)  Charge 2 (against D1 and D2): conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug[2], which alleged that D1 and D2, between 20 July and 14 August 2023, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, conspired together and with other persons unknown, to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely heroin hydrochloride.

(3)  Charge 3 (against D1): trafficking in a dangerous drug[3], which alleged that D1, on 15 August 2023, at Room C, Flat B, 12^th Floor, Campbell Building, No. 9 Kik Yeung Road, Yuen Long, New Territories (“Location 2”)  unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 358.5 grammes of a solid containing 310.1 grammes of cocaine.

(4)  Charge 4 (against D1): conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug[4], which alleged that D1, between 12 and 14 August 2023, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, conspired with an unknown person, to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely cocaine.

FACTS

3.  The facts admitted can be summarized as follows.

4.  Location 1 was the ground floor of a 4-storey village house (“the Village House”), which was separated from upper floors. 

5.  At about 10:50am on 15 August 2023, police officers saw 2 males (D1 and D2), and one of them was pushing a handcart which was loaded with carton boxes.  They entered the Village House with the handcart. 

6.  At about 10:59am, police officers heard banging sound in the Village House, they revealed their police identity and demanded those inside to open the door.  As police’s repeated warnings were ignored, police officers broke into the premises and found D2 standing by the toilet door and D1 in the living room.  When D2 was intercepted by the police, he tried to walk towards the washing basin in the toilet, where a packet containing suspected dangerous drug was found on the floor.  D2 was subdued and pressed on the toilet door.  He ignored police’s repeated requests and kept moving his hands.  D2 was handcuffed.

7.  A search was conducted in the premises and the following items were found and seized:

on the floor in the toilet

a. 1 packet (consisting of adhesive tape/plastic wrappings)  containing 356 grammes of a mixture, in the form of a block, containing 294 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (a salt of heroin);

in the living room

b. 1 packet (consisting of adhesive tape/plastic wrappings)  containing 355 grammes of a mixture, in the form of a block, containing 286 grammes of heroin hydrochloride was found on the floor;

c. 1 packet containing 365 grammes of a mixture, in the form of a block, containing 288 grammes of heroin hydrochloride was found on the kitchen counter;

d. a broken golden plaster lion sculpture was found on the floor;

e. 2 wrapped silver plaster lion sculptures were found on the table;

8.  2 electronic scales, 3 plastic bottles, 4 gloves, some empty transparent resealable plastic bags, 1 plastic bag containing some empty transparent resealable plastic bags, a pair of scissors and a yellow plastic bag containing plastic wrapping materials were found on the kitchen counter.  3 hammers, some plastic wrapping materials, 2 carton boxes (which were collected by D1 and D2 on 15 August 2022), and 2 other carton boxes and plaster debris were found on the floor in the living room.

9.  At 11:04am, D1 and D2 were arrested and stated under verbal caution that:

D1: As he was in need of money, he and Ah Wing (i.e. D2)  collected and delivered white powder for others. They received a reward of HK$8,000, which would be equally shared by them, i.e. HK$4,000 each. They had to wait for a call for delivery instruction. D1 had been engaged in drug trafficking activity for a few weeks and there was also dangerous drug in his home, i.e. Location 2.

D2: Ah Hung (i.e. D1)  asked him to come over to help move things.

10.  At about 6:04pm, the broken golden plaster lion sculpture and 2 wrapped silver plaster lion sculptures were examined.

a. The broken golden plaster lion sculpture was found to contain 1 packet containing 353 grammes of a mixture, in the form of a block, containing 292 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

b. The 2 wrapped silver plaster lion sculptures were each found to contain: (a)  3 packets containing 1,056 grammes of a mixture, in the form of a block, containing 876 grammes of heroin hydrochloride; and (b)  3 packet containing 1,059 grammes of a mixture, in the form of a block, containing 830 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

11.  A total of 10 packets containing a total of 3,544 grammes of a mixture, in the form of a block, containing 2,866 grammes of heroin hydrochloride were found concealed in 4 plaster lion sculptures found in the Village House.  (This is the subject of Charge 1).

12.  A tenancy Agreement dated 15 July 2023 showed that D1 rented the Village House from 23 July 2023 to 22 July 2025 at the monthly rent of HK$6,000.

13.  Of the 4 carton boxes found and seized from the Village House, the Post Office confirmed that:

a. 2 carton boxes which contained “2 lion stones”, were posted by “Law Yee Ting” in Thailand on 11 August 2023 to “Fung Man Wai” at a Hong Kong address on 13 August 2023.

On 15 August 2023 the 2 carton boxes were delivered to the delivery address and were signed to acknowledge receipt by a female. (i.e. the Charge 1 drugs)

b. 2 other carton boxes, which contained “2 lionstone”, were posted by “Law Yee Ting” in Thailand on 3 August 2023 to “Fung Man Wai” at a Hong Kong address. After they arrived at Hong Kong on 5 August 2023, they were delivered to the delivery address and were signed to acknowledge receipt by a female. (this is part of the Charge 2 drugs as against D1)

14.  Police paid visits to the delivery address as stated on the carton boxes at Room 5, 7 /F, Block B, Tai Hing Building, Yuen Long a few limes, but no one answered the door.

15.  At about 3:43pm on 15 August 2023, the police brought D1 to Location 2.  Upon search, the following items were found on a table in the living room:

a. a green paper bag was found to contain 11 plastic bags, with “25.xx” written on them, containing a total of 263 grammes of a solid containing 228 grammes of cocaine; and

b. a white plastic bag was found to contain 8 plastic bags, with “13.xx” written on them, containing a total of 95.5 grammes of a solid containing 82.1 grammes of cocaine.

A total of 19 bags containing 358.5 grammes of a solid containing 310.1 grammes of cocaine was found in Location 2. (This is the subject of Charge 3)

16.  D1 stated under further verbal caution that these were “Coke” which he delivered for others at a reward.

17.  On 25 September 2022, D1 signed the Tenancy Agreement to rent Location 2 from 1 October 2022 to 30 September 2024 at the monthly rent of HK$6,500.  The Tenancy Agreement of the Village House was also found in Location 2.

Cautioned interviews

18.  In the subsequent video-recorded interview, D1 stated under caution that for the 4 lion sculptures found in Location 1 (i.e. Charge 1), that:-

a. He came to know a person called Z through online game about 6 months ago who introduced D2 to him about 6 months ago. He had met Z once, who was a Chinese male and gave him a SIM card. He had Z’s mobile number.

b. In the evening on 14 August 2023, Z instructed him to collect 4 plaster lion sculptures at Tung Tai Street, Yuen Long, at about 10am on 15 August 2023 and to extract 10 packets of white powder from the sculptures by breaking them with a hammer. He had to report to Z whether 10 packets of white powder were extracted. He would be given a reward of HK$2,000 for each sculpture, i.e. HK$8,000 in total.

c. After he received Z’s instructions, he asked D2 to drive him to collect the sculptures and told D2 that the sculptures contained dangerous drug. He would give D2 HK$4,000 reward. D1, however, had not yet received any monetary reward.

d. At about 10am on 15 August 2022, D2 drove D1 to Tung Tai Street, Yuen Long. D1 then saw a courier unloading 2 carton boxes and going upstairs. Dl called and reported it to Z and Z said he would now call a van. D1 did not know the identity of the recipient of the 2 carton boxes and the delivery address. Z had told D1 that the 2 carton boxes were sent from Thailand. The van driver called D1 about 7 minutes later. D1 reported to Z that the courier had left, but the van had not yet arrived. The van later arrived and the driver collected 2 cartons boxes. D1 and D2 then drove to Shek Po Tsuen. D1 did not know the address where the van driver had collected the 2 carton boxes and guessed that Z had informed the van driver of the address. The van driver then delivered the 2 carton boxes to the Village House.

e. D1 and D2 then met the van driver at the public toilet of Shek Po Tsuen at about 11am as arranged and D1 paid the van driver HK$200. D1 and D2 moved the 2 carton boxes to the Village House.

f. D1 and D2 opened the 2 carton boxes, took out the 4 sculptures and broke open the sculptures by using a hammer. D1 first broke open a gold sculpture with a hammer which was found to contain 3 packets of heroin. D2 assisted D1 when D1 was hitting the sculpture with a hammer. Police officers then arrived.

g. D1 rented the Village House on about 20 July 2023 at the monthly rent of HK$6,800 upon Z’s instruction. Z had sent someone to give D1 about HK$30,000 and asked D1 to keep the keys of the Village House. The keys of the Village House were found on D1. Tenancy Agreement of the Village House was found in Location 2.

h. He did not know: (i)  the value of the 10 packets of white powder; and (ii)  the sender and the recipient as stated on 2 carton boxes which contained the 4 lion sculptures.

i. He purchased the 2 electronic scales and transparent resealable plastic bags, which were found in the Village House, upon Z’s instructions. The small electronic scale would be used for weighing samples of dangerous drug.

j. HK$4,160 found on D1 was the remaining money he had received from Z.

k. Someone would contact him to collect the dangerous drug, but he was arrested before anyone had contacted him.

Location 2 (Charges 3 and 4)

l. He collected a paper bag containing about 30 odd bags of “Coke” from an unknown male in the afternoon of 14 August 2023 in Yuen Long and kept it at home for subsequent delivery to others for Z at a reward. Z called D1 on about 12 or 13 August 2023 for the drug dealing activity and asked D1 to inform him the quantity after he had collected it. This was the first time D1 had dealt with “Coke” for Z. Z would not inform him the quantity of “Coke” involved and would pass his mobile number to the person who delivered the “Coke” to him.

m. He would be given HK$100 per bag after delivery. He had counted the bags of “Coke” at home and informed Z over the phone the quantity of the “Coke”, i.e. 19 bags weighed 20 odd grammes and 11 bags weighed 11 grammes.

n. Upon search, only 8 bags of “Coke” were found in a plastic bag on a table and 11 bags of “Coke” were found in a paper bag at his home because he had delivered 8 bags of 24 grammes of “Coke” and 3 bags of 11 grammes of “Coke” to an unknown person in the evening of 14 August 2023. He had not weighed the bags of “Coke”, but number “24” was written on the bags. He received a call with no caller ID displayed and arranged to meet the unknown person for delivering the 11 bags of “Coke” to him. He had not received any reward for the delivery and Z did not tell him when he would be paid.

Charge 2

o. Another 2 carton boxes were also found in the Village House. D1 had dealt with dangerous drugs for Z on about 3 occasions.

p. He could not remember the date he first collected dangerous drugs for Z. He waited for a van in Hung Shui Kiu, collected 2 carton boxes which contained a total of 4 lion sculptures and brought them back to the Village House. He broke the 4 lion sculptures and extracted a total of 12 packets of “white powder”. About 2 to 3 days later, he put the 12 packets of “white powder” in a paper bag and passed it to an unknown person upon Z’s instruction. He received HK$8,000 reward from the unknown person and had spent it.

q. The circumstances in which he had dealt with dangerous drugs for Z on the second occasion was the same as that happened on 15 August 2023. He collected 2 carton boxes which contained a total of 4 lion sculptures and brought them to the Village House. He paid HK$300 for hiring a van. He broke the 4 lion sculptures and extracted a total of 12 packets of “white powder”. About 1 to 2 days later, he passed 12 packets of “white powder” to another unknown person upon Z’s instruction. He received HK$8,000 reward from an unknown person and had spent it.

r. 15 August 2023 was the third occasion he had dealt with dangerous drug which were concealed in sculptures for Z. He had not yet received the HK$8,000 reward for this occasion and Z had not told D1 how the HK$8,000 reward would be given to him.

s. A video, which was found in D1’s mobile phone, was shown to D1. He came to know “Thabsombat” through Z and “Thabsombat” was one of the drivers arranged by Z to collect “white powder” from him. D1 considered that the video was taken in Thailand; but he did not know who took the video. The video was sent to D1 so as to let D1 know the progress because colouring a lion sculpture was the final step. After the paint was dried, lion sculpture would be posted and would arrive at HK a few days later.

t. D2 sent him (D1)  the instructions for making lion sculptures on 8 August 2023 because D2 would delete it before he passed through the Customs at the airport.

u. The mobile phone with a transparent cover was purchased by D1. However, two SIM cards was given to him by Z. He communicated with Z mainly via WhatsApp by using this mobile phone and Z’s mobile number was saved in his mobile phone.

19.  In the subsequent video-recorded interview, D2 stated under caution that:

Charge 2

a. He came to know Ah Hung, i.e. D1, in a bar about a month ago.

b. On 30 July 2023, D1 told D2 that carton boxes which contained lion sculptures would be posted from Thailand, asked D2 to call Z for details and passed Z’s mobile number to him. He had never met Z.

c. D2 then called Z on 30 July 2023 who asked D2 to go to Bangkok, Thailand, on 1 August 2023 and to meet an unknown Thai male in a shopping mall in Bangkok on 4 August 2023 for posting 2 carton boxes which contained a total of 4 lion sculptures to Hong Kong. Z told D2 that 2 female staff would prepare the lion sculptures in Thailand and that the lion sculptures contained about 10 blocks of “4 Chai”, i.e. dangerous drug. Z paid for his return flight tickets and hotel expenses. Having given Z a copy of his passport, Z gave him a false passport and asked him to fill in the Airway Bill by copying the false information as contained in the false passport. Z told him that he would get a reward in the sum of HK$110,000.

d. Upon Z’s instructions, he travelled to Bangkok, Thailand, alone on 1 August 2023. He called Z and then called the 2 females upon Z’s instructions. He briefly met the 2 females in Bangkok, Thailand, when they took him to the hotel. At about 12pm on 4 August 2023, he received a call from Z. Upon Z’s instruction, he met an unknown Thai male in a shopping mall in Bangkok, Thailand, at 1 pm on 4 August 2023 who took D2 to a post office to post 2 carton boxes to Hong Kong. Z had told him over the phone that the unknown Thai male had completed the Airway Bill for D2. He paid for the postage fee of Thai Baht 16,000 and reported to Z after the 2 carton boxes were posted. He returned to Hong Kong on 11 August 2023 and called Z. Z told D2 that monetary reward would be given to him, but D2 had never received it, including the postage fee of Thai Bahl 16,000.

Charge 1

e. At about 8pm on 14 August 2023, he received a call from Ah Hung, i.e. D1, who told him that lion sculptures had arrived at Hong Kong. At about 9pm on 15 August 2023, he drove his private car and met D1 in Yuen Long. At about 10:30am, they waited at his car and saw a van came to collect the lion sculptures. Upon D1’s instruction, he drove his car with D1 on board as a passenger to Shek Po Tsuen to wait for the van. They then collected the 2 carton boxes, which were wrapped with plastic wrappings, and delivered them to the Village House. He was wearing a pair of white gloves at the material time. D1 had keys of the Village House. The 2 carton boxes each contained 2 lion sculptures. The 4 lion sculptures contained a total of about 10 blocks of “4 Chai" or “White Powder”, i.e. dangerous drug. D1 told him that he could leave after having extracted all the blocks of dangerous drug from the lion sculptures.

f. Upon D1’s instructions, he unpacked the 2 carton boxes, took out 4 lion sculptures, used a hammer to break open one of the lion sculptures and saw it contained 3 blocks of “4 Chai". When he was hitting the second sculpture with a hammer, police broke into the Village House.

g. Sender “Law Yee Ting” as stated in the Airway Bill attached to the 2 carton boxes was the name as shown in the false passport given to him by Z. He did not know the recipient, delivery address and telephone number as stated on the Airway Bill.

h. He did not receive any monetary reward for delivering lion sculptures to the Village House. This was the first time he had been to the Village House. He did not know why there were 2 electronic scales, large quantity of resealable plastic bags in the Village House.

i. A photo of a hotel in Bangkok, Thailand, dated 4 August 2023 was found in D2’s blue iPhone. This was the hotel he had stayed in Thailand.

j. D1’s mobile number was saved in his white iPhone and he had exchanged WhatsApp calls and messages with Z. Z promised to give D2 reward in the sum of “$111,720”; sent D2 the steps and formula on 4 August 2023; and asked D2 to send him the false passport of "Law Yee Ting" on 14 August 2023.

20.  Examination of D1’s mobile phone showed that WhatsApp message exchanged between D1, D2, Z and “Thabsombat” from 30 July 2023 and 14 August 2023 showed that D1, D2, Z, and “Thabsombat” were involved in the drug trafficking activity of sending lion sculptures which contained dangerous drug to Hong Kong.

21.  Examination of D2’s mobile phone showed that D2 had deleted most of the messages from his mobile phone.  The undeleted messages exchanged between D2 and Z showed that Z promised to give D2 reward in the sum of “$111,720”; sent D2 the steps and formula on 4 August 2023; and asked D2 to send him the false passport of “Law Yee Ting” on 14 August 2023.

22.  Movement records showed that D2 and “Thabsombat” left Hong Kong at 7:07am on 31 July 2023 and returned to Hong Kong at 10:45am on 11 August 2023.  “Thabsombat” left Hong Kong on 16 August 2023.

23.  The estimated prevailing street value of the dangerous drugs seized was as follows: Charge 1: HK$2,587,120; and Charge 3: HK$440,597 (powder)  or HK$491,504 (crack).

PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

24.  D1 has various traffic offences convictions and one conviction for “Taking Conveyance Without Authority”.

25.  D2 is of clear record in Hong Kong.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

26.  Mr Freddy Woon (counsel for D1)  and Mr Lawrence Hui (counsel for D2), have provided the Court with very helpful and detailed written submissions for mitigation, for which the Court is grateful.

D1

27.  In summary, D1 is now 41 years old, he was born and raised in Hong Kong.  He received education up to form 5.  He was divorced in 2015.  His ex-wife (aged 40)  is a beautician.  They have a daughter (aged 13)  who is residing with his ex-wife.

28.  D1 also has a younger sister (aged 40)  now residing in Australia.  D1’s father passed away in 1999 and his mother passed away in 2013.

29.  Before his arrest, Dl was a logistics manager earning around HK$20,000 per month.  After his completion of form 5, he initially worked as a construction worker.  He also worked as a hair stylist for more than 10 years.

30.  Concerning the commission of the present offences, it was submitted that around 6 months prior to the present offence, D1 became acquainted with Z through online gaming.  Z asked whether D1 would be interested in part-time jobs to earn quick money.

31.  As Dl was under financial pressure, he agreed to assist Z in dealing with drugs.  D1 had admittedly liaised with D2, broken open the sculptures, rented the Village House, purchased electronic scales and resealable plastic bags (though he had never used them)  and actually delivered some of the drugs.  His role and culpability is more serious than that of a mere courier or storekeeper.  However, the only reason why D1 took any steps was that he was instructed by Z to do so.  When Dl gave instructions to D2, he was only passing on instructions given by Z.  There was no proactive planning or organizing on D1’s part.  He was after all only a pawn who was exploited by Z and drug syndicates.

32.  D1 is deeply remorseful for the present offences and promptly made a full confession in his video-recorded interview.  He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

D2

33.  D2 is now 28 years old.  At the time of the offence, he was 26.

34.  He was educated up to Secondary Form 4 and worked as a construction worker.  Prior to his arrest, his monthly earnings were approximately $24,000.

35.  D2 is single.  He was living with his parents in Tuen Mun.

36.  It was submitted that due to the COVID-19, the economy declined. Work opportunities were scarce. At the same time, D2’s father suffered from brain trauma and D2 had to shoulder the father’s medical expenses.  As a result of these financial pressures, D2 committed the present offences.

37.  After his arrest and during his detention, D2 felt sorry that he could not take care of his father, who had previously undergone brain surgery in 2022, leading to deafness in the father’s right ear.  Also, D2 had time to reflect upon his conduct and its consequences.

38.  D2 continues to enjoy the unwavering support of his family.  His parents and elder brother describe him as a kind-hearted man and filial son.  They express that D2’s commission of the present offences is attributable to his father’s brain surgery for trauma.

39.  All the mitigation letters from the Defence submitted to the court are duly considered.

SENTENCING

40.  There are 4 charges in this case and the Defendants played different roles.  Their admissions in their interviews both in terms of knowledge and involvement are also different.

41.  For Count 1, both defendants are charged with trafficking the total quantity of drugs in the carton boxes concealed in 4 lion sculptures (total being 2,866 grammes of heroin hydrochloride).

42.  For Count 2, upon further enquiries from the Court, the Prosecution clarified that this charge concerns a conspiracy between D1, D2 and other persons unknown whereby D1 and D2 played different roles in relation to various consignment of drugs.  However, the Prosecution submitted that this remains one single conspiracy and the Court should assess each Defendants’ role and culpability in the conspiracy in accordance with their extent of involvement and knowledge with reference to their admissions in their respective interviews.  In summary:

(1)  For D1, he admitted that he had collected dangerous drugs concealed in 4 lion sculptures (similar to Charge 1)  on 3 different occasions. On the previous two occasions he was paid HK$8,000 each time. The third occasion was the drugs found in Location 1 (i.e. the drugs the subject of Charge 1)  which he was also promised a sum of $8,000 but never received. Therefore, against D1, through his admissions, he conspired with D2 and others to traffic in heroin hydrochloride on two previous occasions of unknown quantity.

(2)  For D2, he admitted that he conspired with D1 and others to traffic in 2,866 grammes of heroin hydrochloride by flying to Thailand to assist in the posting of the drugs back to Hong Kong.

43.  For Count 3, D1 is charged with trafficking in the quantity of drugs found in Location 2, which is 310.1 grammes of cocaine.

44.  For Count 4, D1 faces another conspiracy charge, for which the parties agree the total quantity of drugs involved to be 196.62 grammes of cocaine.

Sentencing principles when approaching conspiracy

45.  As explained by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ki Chun Pong [2019] 1 HKLRD 717 para 23:-

“In a conspiracy to traffic in an unspecified quantity of dangerous drugs, 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. Unless clear-cut, such inferences and assumptions would inevitably lean in favour of the defence”

46.  The sentencing judge must also give an assessment of the scale and extent of the conspiracy: see HKSAR v Leung King Hung [2024] 4 HKLRD 794.  The Court of Appeal held in that case that the six steps in Herry Jane Yusuph would assist judges in compartmentalizing the various factors relevant to sentence in such cases (para 52).

47.  In HKSAR v Chung Ka Lun [2018] 4 HKLRD 229 para 39, the Court of Appeal referred to its decision in HKSAR v Chan Kam Loi (CACC 410/2012)  in which the Court observed that in cases of inchoate offences such as conspiracy to traffic:-

“The evidence may not always allow of precise quantification but it may be possible to reach a view of the very least that was trafficked by recourse to inferences drawn from the evidence or assumptions based on the evidence. Such a course is permissible as long as the inferences and assumptions are based upon evidence and do not become mere speculation with no evidential foundation. Whether the evidence and the inferences that are drawn from it enable the Court to have recourse to the quantity based sentencing bands will inevitably vary from case to case. But sight should not be lost of the ultimate goal which is to make an accurate assessment of the gravity of the offence so as to enable the Court to impose a just sentence.”

48.  The Court of Appeal went on to say at para 41: “When the evidence was not sufficient for the sentencing court to arrive at a precise quantification of the quantity of drugs involved, reasonable assumptions and allowances most favourable to the defendant should be made…”.  The Court further held that, in that case, it would be unrealistic to adopt a strictly arithmetic approach to a defendant's general and imprecise evidence as to the quantity of dangerous drugs used in the conspiracy.

49.  Since this case concerns two defendants, I also bear in mind that the admissions of one defendant in his own interview are in general not admissible against the other by reason of the hearsay rule.  Although one must note “A further exception permits defendant A to adduce defendant B’s incriminating statement for its truth in order to exculpate the former: R v Myers [1998] AC 124(HL).” And that “In HKSAR v Ho Kin Hang (CACC 152/ 2005, [2005] HKEC 1553), the court held that the rule in Myers is “where there is a voluntary confession against interest made by defendant A, which is relevant to the defence of defendant B, the confession is admissible in evidence as to A’s credibility and as to the facts in issue” (at [31]):  see HK Archbold 2026 p 1020.

50.  I also bear in mind the observations of the English Court of Appeal in R v Cooke [2017] EWCA Crim 1272, where the Court, in holding that their Sentencing Council guidelines in respect of the relevant offence must be taken into account when sentencing for conspiracy, added where “a conspiracy rather than a substantive offence is alleged it will be important for a court to analyse carefully the position of an individual offender, it is sentencing in those circumstances.  Those involved in a conspiracy can play different roles or be involved in different ways and the court must be astute to avoid a one size fits all approach to the guideline.”  This is also a matter of common sense, as the extent or degree of knowledge of different conspirators in the same conspiracy may vary.

51.  Bearing these principles in mind, I now turn to the facts and admissions relevant to the charges against D2 first.

CHARGES 1 & 2 (sentencing of D2)

52.  As Count 2 is the principal offence I will deal with that first.

53.  Count 2 involves a conspiracy to traffic in heroine hydrochloride.

54.  From D2’s interview, the following admissions can, inter alia, be extracted (as set out in the summary of facts)  that:-

(1)  D2 followed Z’s instructions to go to Bangkok to post 2 carton boxes which he was told contained 10 blocks of “4 Chai” (i.e. dangerous drugs)  conceal in lion sculptures;

(2)  D2 did travel to Bangkok as instructed, he met the personnel Z arranged and paid for the postage fee for the posting of the 2 carton boxes;

(3)  After D2 returned to Hong Kong, on 14 August 2023 he was told that the lion sculptures had arrived in Hong Kong. On 15 August 2023, he followed D1’s instructions to collect the 2 carton boxes;

(4)  D2 then followed D1’s instructions to unpack the 2 carton boxes and started to break the lion sculptures that contained the drugs. This was his first time visiting the Village House.

55.  Based on the evidence available and the above information admitted by D2 and applying the legal principles stated above.  I provide the following analysis.

56.  First, D2’s role was subservient to that of D1’s.  He followed D1’s and Z’s instructions and therefore he is lower ranking in the hierarchy.

57.  Second, the duration of the conspiracy, is from 20 July 2023 to 14 August 2023.  The conspiracy lasted for a little longer than 3 weeks.

58.  Third, in relation to the quantities of the drugs involved in the conspiracy, both parties agree that the conspiracy involved the trafficking of a similar quantity of drugs as stated in Charge 1, as similarly “4 lion sculptures” were posted.  The total quantity of drugs involved in the Count 2 conspiracy is therefore assumed to be 2,866 grammes of heroine hydrochloride.

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

59.  The six-step sentencing approach of Herry Jane Yusuph[5], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[6], are then applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff band

60.  Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to 2,866 grammes of heroine hydrochloride.

61.  The sentencing guidelines as updated in Huang Ruifang (No. 3)[7] for heroine narcotics are applied and it would fall under the band of “1,500 to 5,000 grammes” with a sentencing range of “20 to 24 years”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

62.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant in the conspiracy.

63.  In doing so, I have also taken into account the fact that the conspiracy was a “one-off” trafficking.  However, as rightly accepted by counsel for D2, D2 is not a mere courier, he falls into the role of courier / actual trafficker.

64.  I accept D2’s role was limited to facilitating the dispatch of the carton boxes from Thailand and subsequently assisting Dl with the physical extraction of the heroin at the Village House.  There is no evidence of any involvement in the planning and organization of the heroin.  Therefore D2’s culpability was at low-level.

65.  However, as fairly accepted by Mr Hui, there is an “international element” in this case which aggravates D2’s culpability.

66.  As the Court of Appeal explained in HKSAR v Raman Kapusamy [2024] 2 HKLRD 955, the international element is to be considered as part of the assessment of the offender’s role and culpability.  It is a factor or circumstance in the commission of the offence, albeit one which normally made the offender’s role and culpability more serious and enhanced the starting point for sentence.

67.  While many cases would continue to be distinguishable only by the quantities of narcotic being trafficked, there were others where the sentencing judge may adopt a more tailored approach to sentence by assessing the offender’s role and culpability. It was no longer productive to consider standard or uniform enhancements for the international element depending on the quantity.  Nevertheless, sentencing judges should consider that the greater the quantity the drugs, the more harm was caused by that quantity entering Hong Kong and being disseminated.  Quantity must, therefore, still play a role in any enhancement for the international factor (Raman Kapusamy See paras 55-59).

68.  The international element may take a number of different forms including the carrying of drugs across borders by couriers, importing drugs, receiving a parcel from abroad, and ordering drugs from abroad.  These were not exhaustive categories and even within them, there may be variations and different gradations of seriousness in assessing different roles and culpability.  The international element therefore may not lend itself to standard or uniform enhancement.

69.  I note that this case has the additional feature whereby D2 in fact flew from Hong Kong to Thailand in order to traffic the drugs into Hong Kong by assisting in their postage.  With all expenses in Thailand covered.

70.  But “Whatever form the international element takes in the context of trafficking in dangerous drugs, all offenders have one thing in common: they have each either arranged, or caused or facilitated dangerous drugs to be brought over the border illegally into (or out of)  Hong Kong.  That is essentially what the international element in the present context means.” (§61).

71.  In Lee Ming Ho (§58), the Court explained that :-

“... there may be a distinction between the foreigner arriving in Hong Kong for the first time from an impoverished country with a consignment of dangerous drugs, who may not, through naivety or lack of education, fully appreciate the enormity of what he is doing and the appalling consequences of the punishment that will be meted out when he is caught; and the courier from Hong Kong, who journeys across the world to collect a consignment of drugs in order to bring it back to Hong Kong, knowing full well the gravity of his crime and what awaits him when he returns.”

72.  I find D2 in this case to be closer to the latter type described in the quotation.

73.  On the evidence available, I therefore find D2’s role to be slightly more culpable than a mere courier with the “international element” engaged. 

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

74.  On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline bands, for Charge 2: 2,866 grammes of heroin hydrochloride would lead to 21 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

75.  In determining the appropriate overall starting point, I must also take into consideration the role and culpability of D2.  His role as slightly more culpable than a mere courier, and with the “international element” viewing that in context of the quantity of drugs involved in this case. 

76.  I shall enhance the overall starting point by 2 years and 3 months (2 years for the international element and 3 months for his role being slightly more culpable than a mere courier)  resulting in an overall starting point of 23 years and 9 months’ imprisonment at this step.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

77.  There are no aggravating factors applicable in this case.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

78.  Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the strongest mitigating factor in D2’s case is his guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to at least the full one-third discount.

79.  However, as recognised by the Court, the fact that but for the admission of the defendant, the Prosecution would not have known the existence or details of the conspiracy is a mitigating factor.  This factor should be taken into account in sentencing.  It appears this can be done in a number of ways.

80.  For example in HKSAR v Yung Chi-hang [2026] HKCFI 489 a further 5% discount was given for this factor; in HKSAR v Gong Jiaming [2023] HKCFI 3132, HKSAR v Siu Lap-fung [2023] HKCFI 791 and HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing [2017] 5 HKLRD 799§48 – a further discount resulting in a total of 38.5% discount including guilty plea was given; in HKSAR v Yeung Siu Yan [2025] HKCFI 1364, HKSAR v Li Ka-kan [2024] HKCFI 2968 and HKSAR v Hong Tsz-ho [2024] HKCFI 1572 – the estimation of the drugs involved in the conspiracy were adjusted downwards to take into account this factor, following the Court of Appeal in  Tsang Ka Wing (supra) para 41.  In HKSAR v Wong Tsz hin [2026] HKCFI 3289 (although dealing with a conspiracy to manufacture drugs)  a further 16 months discount was given in addition to the 1/3 reduction for guilty plea.  In HKSAR v Tong Ho-wan [2025] HKCFI 1033 the starting point was adjusted downwards to take into account this factor.

81.  In particular, in Tsang Ka Wing (supra) §48 the Court of Appeal held that:-

“We would be prepared to acknowledge the applicant’s assistance, such as it is, with a discount slightly above one-third. However, the discount cannot be 40%, which applies to those defendants who have given valuable or tangible assistance to the police but have not been required to give assistance, typically because the defendant against whom they were to testify pleaded guilty. Accordingly, we would assess the applicant’s overall discount, in the particular circumstances of this case, where the police knew nothing of any conspiracy until the applicant admitted her own involvement in a video-recorded interview, at about 38.5%.”

82.  By reason of this factor, I shall give an additional discount, bringing up the total discount (including discount for guilty plea)  to 38.5%.

83.  That brings the sentence for Charge 2 down to 14 years and 7 months’ imprisonment for D2.

Step 6: Totality

84.  I consider that the sentence imposed for charge 2 to be fair, balanced and just in all the circumstances of the case.

85.  I now turn to Charge 1 against D2. 

86.  The above analysis using Herry Jane Yusuph for Charge 2 is applicable here as the drugs are of the exact same quantity.  Save and except for Charge 1 there is no international element.  On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline bands, for Charge 1, 2,866 grammes of heroin hydrochloride would lead to 21 years 6 months’ imprisonment.

87.  The role and culpability of D2 for Charge 1, similar to that in Charge 2, is “slightly more culpable than a mere courier”, therefore I will enhance the starting point by 3 months, resulting in a sentence of 21 years 9 months’ imprisonment by step 3 of Herry Jane Yusuph.

88.  For step 4, there are no aggravating factors applicable.

89.  For step 5, the only operative mitigating factor is D2’s guilty plea, with the 1/3 reduction, this results in a sentence of 14 years and 6 months imprisonment for Count 1.

90.  Now I need to look at the overall totality for D2’s two offences.  Mr Hui submits that I should simply order 2 years and 8 months under Charge 2 to be served consecutively with Charge 1, thereby arriving at a total of 24 years and 2 months, then give an overall discount to that combined notional sentence after trial (see D2’s written submissions para 41-42)

91.  The figure “2 years 8 months” was deduced by adding up the total amount of drugs involved in Charges 1 and 2 (i.e. 2,866 grammes of heroin hydrochloride x 2), which on a purely arithmetical application of the guideline bands of 5,732 grammes of heroin hydrochloride would lead to the 24 years 2 months’ imprisonment.  The difference between this figure and the notional sentence after trial for Charge 1 (21 years and 6 months)  is 2 years 8 months.

92.  There are two principled reasons why I do not agree with this approach:-

(1)  Firstly, the role and culpability of D2 in Charge 1 and Charge 2 are different, most notably, Charge 2 is the charge with the “international element”.

(2)  Secondly, the mitigating factor of D2’s admissions in the interview leading to the discovery of the offence, which is applicable to Charge 2 leading to a total discount of 38.5%, does not apply to Charge 1.

93.  In order to take into account the added criminality of Count 1 which warrants a consecutive element to Count 2.  I would adopt the initial step of Mr Hui’s approach.

94.  I will use the difference between (1)  the notional starting point after trial for the grand total of the drugs involved in counts 1-2 as against D2 (first figure)  and (2)  the notional starting point after trial for Count 2 (without the international element)  (second figure), in order to assess the consecutive element for Count 1.

95.  For the first figure, the grand total of drugs involved in charges 1-2 is 5,732 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, on a purely arithmetical calculation this would lead to 24 years 2 months’ imprisonment.  To this total I will add 3 months to take into account D1’s role as slightly more serious than a mere courier.  Resulting in 24 years and 5 months.

96.  For the second figure, 2,866 grammes of heroin hydrochloride on a purely arithmetical calculation would lead to 21 years 6 months’ imprisonment, I will again add 3 months to take into account D1’s role as slightly more serious than a mere courier.  Resulting in 21 years 9 months imprisonment.

97.  The difference between the first and second figure is 32 months imprisonment. Taking into account the guilty plea for Charge 1 which is limited to 1/3, would reduce the 32 months figure to 1 year and 9 months, which represents the added criminality and consecutive element of Count 1.

98.  Therefore for D2, I shall order 1 year and 9 months of imprisonment under Charge 1 to be served consecutively to Charge 2’s sentence to take into account the overall totality.

99.  Resulting in total sentence of 16 years and 4 months imprisonment against D2.

CHARGES 1 to 4 (the sentencing of D1)

100.  I shall now deal with the case of D1.

101.  Mr Woon (for D1)  submitted that the Court should use the total quantity of drugs of all four counts against D1 to come to an overall starting point for him in order to assess his overall criminality and to give proper consideration to overall totality.

102.  This is in line with the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lam Chi Wa [2009] 1 HKLRD 483 at [38] and HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei CACC 389/2013 §27, where the Court explained the sentencing approach where two or more counts of drug trafficking are charged and the offences occur on the same day but the reason for there being two or more charges as opposed to one is primarily that the drugs are located in different places.  The sentencing court should add the total of the active ingredient of the drugs together to arrive at a notional starting point, then impose sentences on both offences for that total, making the sentences concurrent with one another.  Separate sentences still have to be imposed and so the judge imposes the same sentence for both offences.

103.  This applies, mutatis mutandis, to the case of D1 as he is charged with multiple counts where the quantity of the drugs involved are different. However, it is noted that the same observation in respect of Count 1 for D2 also applies to D1, since the mitigating factor of “admission leading to discovery of the offence” does not apply to Count 1.

104.  Therefore I will deal with Charges 2 – 4 first.

105.  For Count 2, D1 stated in his interview (as set out in the summary of facts)  that:-

(1)  D1 trafficked dangerous drugs on about three occasions for Z.

(2)  Each time the drugs were concealed in 4 lion sculptures.

(3)  Each time the agreed remuneration was HKD8,000 except on the last occasion he didn’t receive it due to his arrest.

(4)  On the first two occasions, there were 12 “packets” of white powder (drugs)  in the sculpture whilst on the third occasion there were 10 packets.

(5)  Pursuant to Z’s instructions, D1 asked D2 to drive him to collect the sculptures on the third occasion and would give D2 HKD4,000 for it. Z told D1 that the 2 carton boxes were from Thailand on the third occasion.

(6)  D1 rented the Village House upon Z’s instructions and purchased two electronic scales and transparent resealable plastic bags, and the scales were used to weigh the samples of drugs.

106.  Based on the evidence available and the above information admitted by D1, and applying the legal principles stated above.  I provide the following analysis.

107.  First, D1 played a subservient role to Z and followed his instructions in the said conspiracy.  However, he was higher up than D2 in terms of rank and culpability.

108.  Second, the conspiracy is not a “one-off” trafficking but involved 3 occasions.

109.  Third, in relation to the quantities of the drugs involved in the conspiracy, I agree with Mr Woon, that applying the principles that the assumptions and inferences should be most favourable to the defendant, the Court should assume that the drugs involved for the first two occasions would be similar to the third occasion (which is the subject matter of Charge 1).  Even though the number of “packets” may not be the same, the number of “lion sculptures” were the same and the amount of remuneration received (or to be received)  were the same. There is no evidence to show the actual weight of the drugs for the first two occasions, therefore the Court assumes in D1’s favour that the weight is the same as (or at least not more than)  the third occasion.

110.  Therefore the total quantity of drugs falling under Count 2 is 2,866 grammes of heroin x 2, which equals to 5,732 grammes of heroin.

111.  For Count 3, 310.1 grammes of cocaine was involved.

112.  For Count 4, as stated above the parties agree the total quantity of drugs involved to be 196.62 grammes of cocaine.  As calculated by Mr Woon.  In relation to Charges 3 and 4, Dl admitted that he received 30 bags of cocaine from Z (24 grammes x 19 bags and 11 grammes x 11 bags).  On 15 August 2023, only 24 grammes x 11 bags and 11 grammes x 8 bags were found in Location 2 (i.e. the drugs under Count 3).  D1 had already delivered 24 grammes x 8 bags and 11 grammes x 3 bags in the evening of 14 August 2023 (i.e. the drugs under Count 4).  In the 24 grammes x 11 bags, there was 228 grammes of pure cocaine (paragraph 14(a)  of the Summary of Facts). Therefore, there was on average 228/11 grammes of pure cocaine in each bag.  It is reasonable to assume that 19 bags of 24 grammes would contain 228/11 x 19 = 393.8 grammes of pure cocaine (rounded-up).  In the 11 grammes x 8 bags, there was 82.1 grammes of pure cocaine (paragraph 14(b)  of the Summary of Facts).  Therefore, there was on average 82.1/8 grammes of pure cocaine in each bag.  It is reasonable to assume that 11 bags of 11 grammes would contain 82.1/8 x 11 = 112.9 grammes of pure cocaine (rounded-up).  In total, it is reasonable to assume that Charges 3 and 4 involve 393.8 + 112.9 = 506.7 grammes of pure cocaine.

113.  Thus, the grand estimated total of drugs (heroin / cocaine)  involved counts 2 – 4 against D1, would therefore result in 6238.7 grammes.

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

114.  The six-step sentencing approach of Herry Jane Yusuph[8], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[9], are then applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff band

115.  Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to 6238.7 grammes of cocaine / heroin narcotics.

116.  The sentencing guidelines as updated in Huang Ruifang (No3) for heroine narcotics are applied and it would fall under the band of “5,000 grammes to 15,000 grammes” with a sentencing range of “24 to 27 years”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

117.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant in the conspiracy.

118.  In doing so, I find that D1’s role is more culpable than D2’s role, as he was the person who rented the Village House and gave instructions to D2.  Although I accept D1 himself was following instructions.

119.  As fairly accepted by Mr Woon, there is an “international element” applicable to Count 2. 

120.  On the evidence available, I therefore find D1’s role and culpability to be more serious than a mere courier / storekeeper with the “international element” engaged. 

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

121.  On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline bands, for 6238.7 grammes of cocaine / heroin narcotics would lead to 24 years 4 months’ imprisonment.

122.  In determining the appropriate overall starting point, I must also take into consideration the role and the culpability of D1 as more serious than a mere courier / storekeeper with the “international element”, viewing that in context of the quantity of drugs involved in this case. 

123.  I shall enhance the overall starting point by 2 years and 6 months (2 years for the international element and 6 months for his role being slightly more culpable than a mere courier and more culpable than D2)  resulting in an overall starting point of 26 years and 10 months’ imprisonment at this step.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

124.  There are no aggravating factors applicable in this case.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

125.  Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the strongest mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is his guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to at least the full one-third discount.

126.  Similarly to D2’s case, Counts 2-4 would not have come to light but for D1’s own admissions.  Therefore I will give an additional discount for this factor, providing a total discount (including discount for guilty plea)  to 38.5%.

127.  That brings the sentence for Counts 2 - 4 to 16 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

Step 6: Totality

128.  I consider the sentences for Charges 2-4 to be just, fair and balanced in all the circumstances of the case and the offender.

Count 1 against D1

129.  I now turn to Charge 1 against D1. 

130.  The above analysis using Herry Jane Yusuph for Count 1 against D2 is applicable here as the drugs are of the exact same quantity.  Save and except for Charge 1 against D1, there is no international element.  On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline bands, for Charge 1, 2,866 grammes of heroin hydrochloride would lead to 21 years 6 months’ imprisonment.

131.  The role and culpability of D1 for Charge 1 (similar to Charge 2)  is “more serious than a mere courier / storekeeper”, therefore I will enhance the starting point by 6 months, resulting in a sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment by step 3 of Herry Jane Yusuph.

132.  For step 4, there are no aggravating factors applicable.

133.  For step 5, the only operative mitigating factor is D1’s guilty plea, with the 1/3 reduction, this results in a sentence of 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for Count 1.

134.  Now I need to look at the overall totality for D1’s four offences. 

135.  Similar to the approach taken with D2’s case, I will use the difference between (1)  the notional starting point after trial for the grand total of the drugs involved in counts 1-4 (first figure)  and (2)  the notional starting point after trial for Counts 2-4 (without the international element)  (second figure), in order to assess the consecutive element for Count 1.

136.  For the first figure, the grand total of drugs involved in charges 1-4 is 9104.7 grammes of cocaine / heroin narcotics, on a purely arithmetical calculation this would lead to 25 years and 2 months.  To this total I will add 6 months to take into account D1’s role as more serious than a mere courier.  Resulting in 25 years and 8 months.

137.  For the second figure, 6238.7 grammes of cocaine / heroin narcotics would lead to 24 years 4 months, I will again add 6 months to take into account D1’s role as more serious than a mere courier.  Resulting in 24 years 10 months imprisonment.

138.  The difference between first and second figure is 10 months imprisonment.  Taking into account the guilty plea this would reduce the 10months figure to 6 months, which represents the added criminality and consecutive element of Count 1.

139.  Therefore, for D1, I shall order 6 months of imprisonment under Charge 1 to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for Charges 2-4 to take into account the added criminality of Charge 1 and his overall totality.

140.  Resulting in total sentence of 17 years imprisonment against D1.

OVERALL TOTALITY

141.  I consider the sentences imposed on D1 and D2 to be just, fair and balanced in all the circumstances of the case and the offenders.

FINAL SENTENCE

142.  Accordingly, for D1:

(1)  For Charge 1, he is sentenced to 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

(2)  For Charges 2, 3 and 4, he is sentenced to 16 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for each count.

(3)  The sentences for Charges 2, 3 and 4 to be served wholly concurrently.

(4)  I order that 6 months of the sentence from Charge 1 be served consecutively to that of Charges 2, 3 and 4.

(5)  Resulting in a final overall sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment.

143.  For D2:

(6)  For Charge 1, he is sentenced to 14 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

(7)  For Charge 2 he is sentenced to 14 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

(8)  I order that 1 year and 9 months from Charge 1 be served consecutively with that of Charge 2.

(9)  Resulting in a final overall sentence of 16 years and 4 months’ imprisonment for D2.