HKSAR v. YEUNG KA HIN JASON

HCCC 167/2025

[2025] HKCFI 3617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 167 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charge

1.  On 8 May 2025, the defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The 1^st charge involved 57.77 grammes of a solid containing 46.44 grammes of ketamine and traces of flurodeschloro-N-ethyl-ketamine and 6.21 grammes of a solid containing 5.03 grammes of cocaine.  The 2^nd charge involved 169.81 grammes of a solid containing 136.45 grammes of ketamine and traces of flurodeschloro-N-ethyl-ketamine and 12.96 grammes of a solid containing 10.49 grammes of cocaine.  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 7 May 2025 and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing. Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed his guilty pleas to the two trafficking charges and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.  The facts of the case can be summarized as follows.

3.  On 1 April 2023, a police officer was on patrol in Aberdeen and spotted the defendant acting furtively outside No. 85 Ap Lei Chau Main Street.  He intercepted and searched the defendant and found 57 packets of dangerous drugs concealed in his underwear.  Those dangerous drugs were later confirmed to be of such quantities as per the 1^st charge of trafficking.  The defendant was arrested and brought back to the Aberdeen Police Station. 

4.  Upon further search, a hotel key card was found in the defendant’s possession which could be used to gain access to Room 406 of Bluejay Residences (“the Hotel”)  at No. 95 Ap Lei Chau Main Street.  The manager of the Hotel confirmed that the defendant had rented Room 406 on 6 November 2022 for one month until 6 December 2022 at $9,900.  Two hotel key cards had been issued to him. 

5.  In the presence of the defendant and his aunt, the police later entered Room 406 using his hotel key card.  They searched Room 406 and found there such quantities of dangerous drugs as per the 2^nd charge of trafficking.  Apart from the dangerous drugs, the police also found inside Room 406, inter alia, 200 unused re-sealable plastic bags, 4 electronic scales, a colander and another hotel key card. 

6.  The CCTV recordings revealed that on 30 March 2023, the defendant had entered Room 406 at 2:57 a.m. with a key card and left Room 406 at 3:32 a.m. with a rucksack and a trash bag; and on 1 April 2023, the defendant had entered Room 406 again with a key card at 10:11 a.m. and left Room 406 at 10:28 a.m.  He was then intercepted by the police at 10:30 a.m. outside No. 85 Ap Lei Chau Main Street.

7.  The estimated retail values of the seized dangerous drugs were as follows:

(i)  Cocaine: $20,933 (powder)  or $30,193 (crack);

(ii)  Ketamine: $122,432.

8.  In the Summary of Facts, the defendant also admitted that he had unlawfully trafficked in all the dangerous drugs seized from him and inside Room 406.

Background and Mitigation

9.  The defendant was born in Hong Kong.  He was 16 years old at the time of the offences and is now aged 19.  When he was arrested for the present case, he was a Form 2 student.  He is single and prior to his arrest, he was living with the family of his paternal aunt.

10.  Counsel for the defendant, Mr. James Wong, informed the Court that the defendant’s parents had divorced when he was born and they had failed to properly take care of the defendant.  From the time he was 5 years old, the defendant was raised by his aunt who was (and remains)  supportive of him at all times.  However, his aunt had her own children and was busy in making money to support her own family, and therefore it was difficult for her to assume a maternal role for the defendant.  As the defendant grew up, he began to loiter around in the streets and got acquainted with persons with unsavoury background; and that eventually led to him committing the offences at the age of 16.  For the past two years or so of his remand, the aunt visited the defendant very often to support him. 

11.  Mr. Wong produced a mitigation letter written by a welfare worker who has been following up the defendant’s case since 2022.  According to the welfare worker, during his remand, the defendant came to understand the true value of a family and that motivated and inspired him to have a new start in life.  The defendant had repeatedly expressed to him his hope to get back on track with a stable life and job, and to repay his aunt’s support for him.  Whilst in custody, the defendant completed a hairstyling course which earned him a certificate, and he now plans to become a hairstylist in the future.

12.  Mr. Wong also produced a letter written by the defendant himself at the hearing today in which the defendant explained his miserable childhood and upbringing, and expressed his genuine remorse for the offences.  The defendant explained that because of his young age and out of greed, he was lured into the committing the present offences.

13.  The Court was also told by Mr. Wong that with the unfailing love and support from his aunt, the defendant is determined to rehabilitate himself and to lead a law-abiding life in the future.

14.  The defendant has two previous convictions both dated 28 December 2021, one for inflicting grievous bodily harm and the other for claiming to be a triad member; and for these two convictions, he was sentenced and subjected to a probation order.  However, he breached the probation order and was sent to a rehabilitation centre in May 2023.  

15.  Mr. Wong acknowledged that young age per se is not a strong mitigating factor in cases of this nature but he submitted that the Court should avoid passing a crushing sentence in dealing with the defendant who was an offender of young age.

16.  As the offences involved two types of dangerous drugs, Mr. Wong invited the Court to undertake a combined approach to sentencing in the present case.  He further invited the Court not to impose a significant enhancement of the sentences by virtue of the cocktail of drugs.  He accepted that given the seriousness of the trafficking offences, other than the guilty pleas, the defendant can raise no strong mitigating factor. 

Sentence

17.  In sentencing the defendant, I will follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

18.  The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantities of the dangerous drugs in question.  In the present case, the two types of drugs were ketamine and cocaine. 

19.  When more than one type of dangerous drugs are involved in a trafficking offence, the court will adopt a combined approach in sentencing.  As explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013, there are three means of cross-checking whether a sentence is manifestly inadequate, namely, the absurdity test, the ratio test and the conversion test. 

20.  In the present case, the absurdity test will result in an overall starting point of about 11 years and 11 months, whereas the ratio test will lead to a starting point of about 8 years and 1 month.  On the other hand, the conversion test will yield a starting point of about 8 years.  In the circumstances of this case, I find the conversion test to be the most appropriate one to adopt in sentencing the defendant.  I shall therefore use a term of 8 years’ imprisonment as the overall starting point in sentencing the two trafficking offences. 

21.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court.  In short, the dangerous drugs were partly found on the defendant and partly stored by the defendant at Room 406, which he had rented before and had access to.

22.  The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band the defendant should come.  In my assessment, the defendant’s role was that of a storekeeper cum courier. 

23.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  It is an aggravating factor for an accused to traffic in more than one type of dangerous drugs “because in such a situation the trafficker is able to cater to a far wider market than the trafficker in only one kind of drug.” (See HKSAR v Yim Hung Lui Ricky, CACC 266/2011, and HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644). I will enhance the starting point of 8 years by 3 months, taking it to 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.  I shall disregard the defendant’s previous convictions as they were unrelated to dangerous drugs.

24.  The fifth step is to take into account the mitigating factors, if any.  As accepted by Mr. Wong, given the seriousness of the trafficking offences, the only real mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is his guilty pleas which were entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the overall sentence down from 8 years and 3 months to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.  In order to achieve that, in respect of the 1^st charge, I will use a starting point of 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment and reduce it by one third to arrive at a sentence of 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.  In respect of the 2^nd charge, I will use a starting point of 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment and reduce it by one third to arrive at a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment.  I will order that 1 year and 4 months of the sentence of the 2^nd charge to run consecutively to the sentence of the 1^st charge, making a total sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

25.  Lastly, I consider these sentences fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offences and the defendant.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a total term of imprisonment for 5 years and 6 months.

Exhibits

26.  Order in terms of the Prosecution’s application, not objected to by the Defence, was granted to dispose the exhibits.