COURT: Defendant, these are my reasons for sentence. You have pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to Section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.
The 1st charge alleges that you, on 19 April 2024, at Staircase No. 4, 5th Floor, Cheung Fat Industrial Building, Nos. 64-76 Larch Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 370 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 370 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and 84.4 grammes of a mixture containing 70.6 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.
The 2nd charge alleges that you, on the same day, at Room A, Flat 1, 5th Floor, Cheung Fat Industrial Building, Nos. 64-76, Larch Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 738 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 738 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and 183 grammes of a mixture containing 153 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.
The Facts
The facts admitted are these.
In the evening of 19 April 2024, a team of police officers conducted an anti-narcotic operation at Cheung Fat Industrial Building, Nos. 64-76, Larch Street, Mong Kok (“the Building”). At about 2049 hours, police observed the defendant enter Flat 1 on the 5th Floor. At about 2202 hours, the defendant was seen leaving Flat 1 holding a brown paper bag. Police intercepted the defendant on the 5th Floor corridor and revealed their identity. The defendant immediately discarded the brown paper bag on the floor. Police subdued the defendant and took him to Staircase No. 4 on the 5th Floor.
The defendant was found in possession of one mobile phone and cash of $156.
The brown paper bag was found to contain 10 plastic packets of 370 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and three plastic packets of a mixture containing 70.6 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. Police arrested the defendant for trafficking in dangerous drugs. Under caution, the defendant admitted that the dangerous drugs inside the brown paper bag belonged to him (the 1st charge).
Keys to Room A of Flat 1 on the 5th Floor were found on the defendant. Police conducted a search of Room A. Room A was approximately 350 square feet with a toilet inside and no furniture. Upon search, police found a black suitcase which contained 27 plastic packets of 738 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, one plastic bag of a mixture containing 153 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and one plastic bag of 1.12 kilogrammes of phenacetin.
Police also found the following items on the floor next to the black suitcase: One vacuum sealer, four packets of transparent plastic bags, one box of cling wrap, one electronic scale, one pair of scissors, one paper cutter, two plastic sheets and two paper bags, and one tenancy agreement of Room A. The tenancy agreement was for renting Room A for the period from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024 at a monthly rent of $7,500 with the defendant as the tenant. Under caution, the defendant admitted that the dangerous drugs inside the suitcase belonged to him (the 2nd charge).
The defendant now admits and accepts that at all material times he unlawfully trafficked in all the dangerous drugs seized.
Background and Mitigation
The defendant is 58 years of age. He was born in Hong Kong. He is divorced and has a daughter aged 27. He received education up to Form 3. He was working in the used mobile phone business, earning approximately $20,000 per month.
The defendant has a number of previous convictions. The defendant’s most recent conviction is for trafficking in a dangerous drug in 2012, for which he was sentenced to 5 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. That conviction was approximately 12 years prior to the present offence.
In mitigation, counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant turned to drug consumption in around 2023 and was spending approximately $15,000 per month on drugs. The expenses on drugs led to financial difficulties. For quick money, the defendant accepted instructions from a person he referred to as the boss to rent the premises and deal with the drugs. Counsel submitted that the defendant was acting as a courier at the lowest level of the trafficking hierarchy.
Counsel submitted that the defendant provided to the police information related to the boss. However, the boss was arrested for another case and hence no statement was taken from the defendant. Counsel asked this court to consider giving more discount to the defendant.
Counsel further submitted that the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is genuinely remorseful.
Sentencing Considerations
With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKC 150, I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.
Both charges arise from the same drug trafficking operation on the same evening and involve the same two types of dangerous drugs. As each charge involves a mixture of methamphetamine hydrochloride and heroin hydrochloride, it is necessary to apply the combined approach set out in HKSAR v Islam S M Majharul [2020] 3 HLRD 146 and HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong [2014] HKLRD 325.
First step: identifying the relevant guideline band. The relevant guidelines for trafficking in methamphetamine hydrochloride and heroin hydrochloride are set out in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, which superseded all earlier guidelines. Methamphetamine hydrochloride constitutes the substantial majority of the drug seized, being 83.2 per cent of the total weight. Further, it has to be taken more seriously due to its effects on drug abusers and the society. I therefore identify it as the base drug.
By reference to the case of Huang Ruifang’s guidelines, the notional starting points for the base drug methamphetamine hydrochloride are: for the 1st charge, 15 years 8 months for 370 grammes; for the 2nd charge, 18 years 3 months for 738 grammes, and on a global basis 19 years 1 month for the aggregate of 1,108 grammes. The notional starting point for the heroin hydrochloride component, considered individually, is 12 years 3 months for the aggregate of 223.6 grammes.
I apply the three tests under the combined approach as a cross-check against the base drug’s starting points.
On the absurdity test, assuming all the narcotics to be heroin hydrochloride, by a total weight of 1,331.6 grammes, the notional starting point will be 19 years 3 months, assuming all to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, 19 years and 7 months.
On the conversion test, converting all narcotics to methamphetamine hydrochloride produces an equivalent of 1,253 grammes, attracting 19 years 5 months; converting to heroin hydrochloride produces an equivalent of 1,506 grammes, attracting 20 years.
On the ratio test, the notional starting point will be 17 years 11 months.
The absurdity and conversion tests all produce results slightly above the base drug starting points. Confirming that the base drug starting point is appropriate, I adopt an upward adjustment of 4 months to account for the heroin hydrochloride component. The adjusted notional starting points are: 1st charge, 192 months; 2nd charge, 223 months, and on a global basis, 233 months.
Second step: the defendant’s role and culpability. As held by the Court of Appeal in Herry Jane Yusuph, the guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs are devised for those at the bottom of the trafficking hierarchy, namely, the courier or storekeeper.
I note that a vacuum sealer, electronic scales, scissors, paper cutter and plastic bags were found adjacent to the suitcase in Room A and that the defendant himself rented the premises. That said, I accept that on the facts the defendant was acting on the instructions of the Boss. There is no direct evidence that his role went beyond that of a courier or storekeeper. As such, there is no enhancement on account of the defendant’s role.
Third step: placement within the guideline band. Considering the overall role and culpability of the defendant, I find that the notional starting points I mentioned before remain appropriate.
Fourth step: aggravating factors. The two charges each involve a mixture of methamphetamine hydrochloride and heroin hydrochloride. As held in Chan Yuk Leong and Islam S M Majharul, the multiplicity of drug types reflects a wider market and an enhanced drug danger to users. And as a separate aggravating factor, I enhance the sentence of each of the charges by 3 months on this account.
As to the defendant’s previous conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2012, I note that it predated the present offence by approximately 12 years. Given the substantial passage of time, I do not consider it appropriate to enhance the sentence on this account.
I find no other aggravating factors beyond those inherent in the offence itself.
After the enhancement, the notional starting points are: 1st charge - 195 months; 2nd charge - 226 months; on a global basis - 236 months.
Fifth step: mitigating factors. The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity for which he is entitled to a full one-third discount. Applying the one-third discount, the 1st charge is reduced to 130 months. The 2nd charge is reduced to 150 months. The overall notional sentence after this reduction is 157 months.
As for the personal and family circumstances of the defendant, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that they carry little weight in serious drug-trafficking cases. Therefore, I do not make any further reduction on this account and on the other factors submitted by counsel.
Sixth step: totality and overall fairness. After the enhancement and deduction as stated, the sentence is 157 months’ imprisonment. I have stood back and considered the sentence as a whole. The sentence is undoubtedly severe. However, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, the defendant’s role and culpability, I am satisfied that the sentence is fair, just and balanced to the offence as well as to the defendant.
Sentence
Defendant, please stand up. Now, you are sentenced as follows. On the 1st charge, 130 months’ imprisonment. On the 2nd charge, 150 months’ imprisonment. 7 months of the 1st charge shall run consecutively to the sentence of the 2nd charge.
You are therefore sentenced to a total of 157 months’ imprisonment, namely, 13 years and one month imprisonment.