HKSAR v. YAN FU WING

HCCC 260/2025

[2025] HKCFI 6213

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 260 OF 2025

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty before a magistrate for two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He is now committed for sentence.

On 25 December 2024 at around 6.30 in the morning, the defendant was intercepted by the police at Ground Floor, Hing Cheong Building, Nos. 15-31 Shau Kei Wan Road, Sai Wan Ho. Upon search, a packet of drug was found in the inner pocket of the defendant’s jacket which contains 349 grammes of a mixture containing 285 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

The defendant was then brought to Flat M on the 6th floor of the building and the police gained entrance to the unit with the keys found on the defendant. Upon search inside the unit, a total of 46 packets containing 16,119 grammes of a mixture containing 13,145 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and seven packets containing 6,992 grammes of a solid containing 6,973 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Some paraphernalia including two electronic scales, a heat sealer, and resealable plastic bags were also found.

Under caution, the defendant said he stored dangerous drugs because he was indebted.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant said inter alia the drugs belonged to a person called To For, who he was indebted to and he stored and delivered the drugs on the instructions of To For at a reward of two to three thousand per delivery which would be used to set off his debt.

The estimated street value of the drugs involved is, in relation to Charge 1, HK$211,145, and in relation to Charge 2 for the heroin, HK$9,751,995 and for the ‘Ice’, HK$3,621,856.

The defendant is now 62 years old. He has one previous record of gambling which happened in 1989 for which he was fined $500. He was educated up to Form 3 level and he was a carpenter when he was young. He was unemployed at the time of the offence. According to Ms Ho, counsel for the defendant, defendant suffered hypertension, fatty liver, and also diabetes. He was living together with his mother, sisters, and brother on the 7th floor of the same Hing Cheong Building. Flat M, 6th floor was purchased by his grandfather.

According to Ms Ho, the defendant is now very remorseful and he felt very sorry to have disappointed his family members and caused them inconvenience by using the family property for drug trafficking.

In consideration of sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs, this court is to adopt the six step approach set out in the Court of Appeal case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, and also follow the guidelines set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

The present case is a case involving two different kinds of drugs. As submitted by Ms Ho, in deciding the appropriate starting point based on the quantities of drugs, this court has to countercheck the starting point with the absurdity test, the conversion test, and the ratio test. Ms Ho has set out in her written submission the results of applying different tests for the quantities of the drugs involved in the present case, using the guidelines as laid down in Huang Ruifang.

I will not set out in detail the results arrived at by Ms Ho. It would be sufficient to say that the appropriate starting point all point to 28 years and 2 months for Charge 2. For Charge 1, considering the guideline under Huang Ruifang, the appropriate starting point is 13 years and 1 month.

Regarding the role of the defendant, although the quantity of the relevant drugs are huge and the defendant was entrusted to solely handle the drugs of this worth, I am minded to accept that he is nothing more than a storekeeper.

In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 13 years and 1 month’s imprisonment for Charge 1 and 28 years and 2 months for Charge 2.

Although the defendant has a previous conviction, it is a very minor offence. I am minded to regard him as a first offender for the purpose of sentencing. Given the long sentence that he will face, I am not minded to make any enhancements due to the fact that two kinds of drugs were involved.

Apart from the defendant’s guilty plea, there is no other valid mitigating factor and the defendant will have the full one-third discount because of that. For Charge 1, the sentence is therefore reduced to 8 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. For Charge 2, the sentence is reduced to 18 years and 9 months.

Considering the total quantity of the drugs involved in the two charges and the totality of sentence, I order that 6 months of Charge 1 be served consecutively to Charge 2, and the rest of the sentences be served concurrently. The total sentence that will be served by the defendant is therefore 19 years and 3 months.