HKSAR v. CHAN FAAT LEE

HCCC 297/2025

[2026] HKCFI 670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 297 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________________

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

________________________________

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug before a magistrate on 4 September 2025. It is alleged that on the 31^st day of January, 2024, at Room 2249, Panda Hotel, Tsuen Wan, he unlawfully trafficked in 2,683.8 grammes of cocaine narcotic.

According to the Summary of Facts which he agreed at the time of his guilty plea, at about 11.41 am on 31 January 2024, police officers saw him walking quickly towards the lift lobby of 22^nd Floor of the Panda Hotel in Tsuen Wan. The police revealed their identity and asked the defendant to stop, but the defendant ignored them and continued to walk. Later he was intercepted by the police.

Upon enquiry, he stated that he rented room 2249 of the hotel. A key card that can gain access to the room was also found in his trousers pocket. The police then gained entry into the room by using the key card found on his person and executed a search warrant to search the room. In a suitcase found in the wardrobe, the police found a total of 42 plastic bags and one glass bottle containing all the drug particularised in the charge. In respect of those 42 plastic bags, 38 of them contained numbers which matched the weight of each bag of drug.

The total estimated street value of the cocaine seized in this case was $2,386,157 in the form of powder or $3,218,425 in the form of crack cocaine.

An electronic scale was also found in the wardrobe. On the person of the defendant, the police also found two mobile phones and cash of $10,210.

Upon his arrest, the defendant stated under caution that because he owed money to a bank, he trafficked in dangerous drug to earn quick money.

In the subsequent video-recorded interview, he admitted under caution that he borrowed money from a bank and needed to repay the loan by instalments. About a month ago, an unknown person called “Ling Ling” approached him and asked whether he wanted to earn quick money. He gave his mobile number to Ling Ling. Ling Ling contacted him a few days later, asked him to keep a batch of goods for him and to rent a hotel room. He did not tell the defendant the nature of the goods.

The defendant then rented Room 2249 of Panda Hotel on about the 8 January 2024. The rent for 39 days and the deposit was about $21,000. There was only one key card which was kept by the defendant and nobody else had entered into the room. A few days later, on the instruction of Ling Ling, he met Ling Ling at Tsim Sha Tsui Pier and received a suitcase from Ling Ling. Ling Ling said he would contact the defendant later for delivering the suitcase to another person, and promised him a reward in the sum of $30,000.

He said the suitcase found in the hotel room was the one he collected from Ling Ling on that day. Upon return to the room, he opened the suitcase and found that it contained paper bags, an electronic scale, a bottle of wine and two bags of suspected cocaine. He also said that the cash on his person was his own savings and salary. He used one of the mobiles found on him to contact Ling Ling.

The defendant’s left middle fingerprint and left ring fingerprint were found on the door of the toilet in the room. Also his left index fingerprint and left little fingerprint were found on the mirror in the room.

According to the hotel’s record, he rented Room 2249 from 7 January 2024 to 15 February 2024 at a total rent of $21,740 which included a $2,000 deposit.

The CCTV of the hotel showed that the defendant returned to this room alone at 2.14 pm on 30 January 2024, and left the room at the time when he was intercepted by the police.

The defendant admitted that at the material time, he unlawfully possessed the dangerous drug seized for the purpose of trafficking.

The defendant is now 34 years of age. He was 32 years old at the time of the offence. He is a man of clear record. He has attained Form 5 level education and used to work as a security guard until his arrest. It seems that he had some health problem before his arrest and was undergoing treatment at the Yan Chai Hospital. He is single and resided with his family members in Kwai Chung Estate in Kwai Chung.

In mitigation, counsel Mr Kwan Tong-lee informed me that at the material time he was working as a security guard earning a monthly salary of around HK$13,000. A total of 23 mitigating letters were submitted by counsel to plead for mitigation on his behalf including letters written by the defendant himself, his parents, his friends and colleagues or ex-colleagues.

In the letter written by the defendant himself, he expressed his remorse and said that before he committed the present offences he had been working as a security guard for almost 5 years. He said he attempted to better equip himself while he is in custody and has taken up some courses in custody. He asked this court to take into account his remorse and to give him a lenient sentence.

All the other letters basically testified to the fact that he was a guy of good nature, he was a filial son and he was a good friend or a good colleague. But, as the authorities are clear, personal background and also a clear record do not amount to any useful mitigating factors in offences as serious as trafficking in dangerous drugs.

Counsel urged me to give him an additional discount of 3 months because of his clear record and background, the fact that he had grown up without parental guidance since the age of 11, his remorseful attitude and the other favourable remarks from his parents and colleagues.

Counsel agreed that even though a total of 23 letters were submitted, in fact the contents only showed his personal background and cannot amount to any helpful or useful mitigating factors.

Before this hearing today, on Friday afternoon, I received a further written mitigation submission from counsel saying that he purported to render assistance to the authorities, however he was told that the statements were not of any use. Of course, counsel should be aware of the procedure set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Yeung Hoi Ting [2019] 3 HKLRD 516 if the related factor is going to be relied upon. Clearly nothing about the Yeung Hoi Ting procedure was being followed in this case. Also counsel did not mention anything about this matter at all in his oral submission before me today. So I will ignore this matter in the course of my sentencing of the defendant.

In sentencing the defendant I bear in mind the approach set out by the Court of Appeal in the cases of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

According to the revised guidelines in the recent case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the starting point for trafficking in between 1,500 grammes and 5,000 grammes of cocaine narcotic is 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment after trial. The mathematical starting point is appropriate for people who act as courier or storekeeper, that means for people at the bottom of the trafficking hierarchy. For 2,683.8 grammes of cocaine narcotic, the mathematical starting point would be 21 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

I accept counsel’s submission in this case that the role of the defendant was that of a courier and storekeeper, so I will adopt 21 years and 4 months’ imprisonment as the notional sentence after trial.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge at an early stage and he is entitled to a full one-third discount. Other than that, I do not see anything in his personal background or in his family circumstances that would justify any useful or meaningful discount.

As such, after the one-third discount he is sentenced to 14 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.