HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN WAI

DCCC 693/2026

[2026] HKDC 1541

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 693 OF 2026

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  There are two defendants in this case. Only the 1^st Defendant (D1) appears before this Court today for sentence.

2.  D1 pleads guilty to one charge of possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, which is the 1^st Charge on the Charge sheet.  The other two charges on the Charge Sheet do not concern him.  His sentencing is adjourned until today pending a drug addiction treatment centre suitability report (“DATC report”) as well as a probation order and community service order suitability report (“PO/CSO report”).

The Admitted Facts

3.  At about 9:45 am on 11 November 2025, a team of police officers including PC21804 and PC20583 was on anti-narcotic operation at the Gold Coast Hotel, No. 1 Castle Peak Road, Tuen Mun (‘the Hotel”).

4.  At about 11:28 am, D1 walked out of the lobby of the Hotel.  About two minutes later, he was intercepted by PC21804 in the Golden Beach Path near lamppost no. FC4267.  He told PC21804 that he was a guest of the Hotel and was staying in Room 526 (“the Room”).

5.  At about 12:01 pm, D1 consented to the police searching the Room after he had been shown a search warrant.

6.  At about 12:05 pm, PC20583 executed the search warrant and searched the Room in the presence of D1.  PC20583 found and seized the following items as exhibits:

(a) One transparent re-sealable plastic bag containing 10.9 grammes of a solid containing 9.34 grammes of ketamine;

(b)One transparent re-sealable plastic bag (with red line) containing 17 transparent re-sealable plastic bags containing a total of 10.3 grammes of a solid containing 8.83 grammes of ketamine.;

(c) One paper packet containing 0.06 grammes a solid containing ketamine;

(d)One paper packet containing 0.02 grammes a solid containing ketamine;

(e) One paper packet containing traces of a solid containing ketamine;

(f) A pair of blue scissors;

(g)A steel tweezer; and

(h)A pile of white papers.

7.  At about 12:15 pm, PC21804 arrested D1 for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drug. Under caution, D1 said that all the dangerous drugs were for his self-consumption.

8.  During the video-recorded interview conducted between 8:48 pm and 9:11 pm on 12 November 2025, D1 stated under caution, inter alia, the following:

(1)He traded in stocks for a living;

(2)He was residing at the Room alone, and no one else had access to the Room;

(3)He had started to stay in the Room since late May 2025; and

(4)He spent about $30,000 renting the Room per month.

9.  At the material times, D1 had in his possession a dangerous drug, namely, 21.28 grammes of a solid containing 18.17 grammes of ketamine, 0.08 grammes of a solid containing ketamine and traces of a solid containing ketamine.

Criminal record of D1

10.  D1 has a clear criminal record.

Personal and family background

11.  D1 is now 44 years old.  He was born on 11 April 1982 in the Mainland.  His parents grew up in the Mainland.  His father later migrated to Hong Kong.  D1 and his mother also went to Hong Kong in 1984 for family reunion.  His parents however divorced many years ago after his father had engaged in extramarital affairs.  After his parents’ divorce, D1 has not been in contact with his father.

12.  D1 is single.  He lived in a village house in Yuen Long with his mother (aged 68) and younger sister (aged 39), as well as his sister’s cohabitant (aged 42) and son (aged 7).  He rented a room in the Gold Coast Hotel at the time of the offence.  He was remanded in custody since his arrest and was granted bail only on 19 May 2026. He then resumes living in the same village house with the same family members.

13.  D1 received education up to Form 5.  From 2002 onwards, he worked as a technician of a broadband company until 2008 when he started working as a stockbroker in a securities firm after he had passed the licensing examination for securities and futures intermediaries.  He was however laid off by the securities firm in 2021 on the ground of redundancy.  He then worked as a self-employed stockbroker. Instead of earning money from managing his clients’ investment accounts in the past, he now mainly managed his own investment.  His income was fluctuating.  His average monthly income was HK$50,000 to HK$60,000.

Initial mitigation

14.  Mr. Matthew Lau, learned solicitor for the defendant, stressed that all the ketamine in question was for the self-consumption of D1 who was a bona fide user of the drugs. There was no latent risk that any part of the drugs might be disseminated into the hands of others.  D1 rented a hotel room just for himself to take drug so that he could keep his drug habit secret from his family members.  There was no evidence that D1 might share the drug with others.  No scale or other paraphernalia for distribution of drug were found inside the Room.

15.  Mr. Lau pointed out that D1 had a clear record, and deeply regretted his action.  He was profoundly remorseful and swore that he would quit his shameful drug habit for good.  Mr. Lau submitted that the strongest mitigation in this case was D1’s guilty plea and his full confession to the offence at the time of his arrest. 

16.  When Mr. Lau first mitigated for D1, he asked for a custodial sentence to be imposed on D1. He referred to the 3-step sentencing approach laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Wan Sheung Sum[1], and submitted that a starting point of 16 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate and that the starting point should not be enhanced since there was no risk that D1 would disseminate the drugs.

Pre-sentencing reports

17.  According to the PO/CSO report, since the divorce of his parents, D1 had become the backbone of the family both socially and financially.  He helped his mother going through her difficult time after divorce by giving her strong emotional support and encouragement. He had also developed a harmonious relationship with his sister and showed his unconditional love and concern for her when she had unwed pregnancy.  He cared for the cohabitant and son of his younger sister as well, both of them had some psychiatric issues.  On top of rendering them emotional supports, D1 was also mainly responsible for paying the expenses of the whole family from his investment earnings.  He was described by his family members to be a filial, obedient and responsible person with strong commitment to the family. 

18.  The probation officer also reported that D1 first toyed with ketamine in 2016 in a social gathering with his friends, but it was only in 2025 that he started taking the drugs regularly when his income was unsatisfactory during that period, and when he had to give up the use of his room to the mother of his sister’s cohabitant temporarily when her home was under renovation.  Upon counselling, D1 was made aware of the need that he should enhance his stress management skills and risk management on his investment.

19.  The probation officer concluded that family burden had from time to time become unbearable to D1 who with poor stress management skills opted to take drugs under the influence of undesirable peers, but his awareness over his drug problem was enhanced from the present legal proceedings.  Taking into account of D1’s clear record, his determination to start anew, and his strong family support, the probation officer recommended to this Court that D1 should be put on probation with special conditions for 12 months.

20.  The DATC report shows that D1 is not a drug dependent now, and DATC treatment is therefore not suitable for D1.

Further mitigation

21.  Mr. Lau entered his further mitigation for D1 today.  He stressed the extraordinary resilience of D1 who grew up without a serious male role model.  He praised D1 for his support and care not only of his mother and younger sister, but also of the cohabitant and the son of his younger sister.  Mr. Lau asked the Court to adopt the recommendation of the probation officer. 

22.  D1 has confirmed that he is willing to serve the probation order as recommended by the probation officer in the PO/CSO report.

Reasons for sentence

23.  There is no sentencing tariff for the offence of possession of dangerous drugs.  However, the Court is more inclined to adopt a rehabilitative rather than punitive approach in sentencing if it is of the view that it is still possible for the offender to reform and learn to stay away from drug.  A rehabilitative sentence includes a sentence in the open settings such as probation or community service order, but it may also be a sentence of detention in a drug addiction treatment centre which is a form of rehabilitative sentence in closed settings.  It is only when the Court rules out the suitability of such sentencing options that it will impose a term of imprisonment on a defendant for the sake of punishment and deterrence.

24.  In the present case, the offence committed by D1 was serious because he was found in possession of a large quantity of ketamine, namely, 18.17 grammes of ketamine inside 21.28 grammes of a solid and some other traces of ketamine.  The sheer quantity of the drug has made the offence grave enough to reach or surpass the threshold for imposing a custodial sentence on D1.

25.  On the other hand, there are a number of factors in favour of a non-custodial sentence.  D1 has pleaded guilty, he has a clear record, there is no direct evidence that he will disseminate the ketamine to others either by sale or sharing, and that the latent risk for him doing so appears to be low.  From the social enquiries conducted by the probation officer, it appears that D1 is a man with decent background.  He has a good job, and substantial income.  He is also a responsible person who has been doing everything possible for the welfare and benefits of his close family members.  The desire to do well for his family members will no doubt be the greatest incentive for him to stay away from drugs. Not only does he treat his family members well, he has also good support from his family.  Besides, from the fact that he is found not to be a drug dependent, he has demonstrated, at least for the limited time between his bailout and today, that he has the motivation and the requisite ability of self-control to stay away from drugs. Of course, D1 has to learn and strengthen his stress coping skills so that he will not resort to taking drugs again in times of difficulties.

26.  Of course, D1 has already received a fair share of punishment when he was not granted bail from the time of his arrest, and he had been remanded in custody for 6 months.

27.  Having considered all the factors, I am of the view that putting D1 on probation with the special conditions for 12 months as recommended by the probation officer is the most appropriate sentence for the benefit of D1 as well as the society.

28.  For these reasons, in respect of Charge 1, D1 is put on probation for 12 months with the following special conditions:

(a) he shall be of good behaviour and keep the peace;

(b) he shall keep in touch with the supervising probation officer (“the PO”);

(c) he shall work or study and reside as directed by the PO;

(d) he shall abstain from all kinds of dangerous drugs;

(e) he shall submit to random urine tests or taking samples as and when directed by the PO;

(f) he shall receive any form of drug withdrawal treatment as directed by the PO;

(g) he shall participate in any programmes and activities the PO deems conducive to his rehabilitation as directed; and

(h) he shall receive psychological consultation and treatment as directed by the PO.

29.  D1 is warned that if he fails to comply with any of the conditions of this probation order, and/or if he commits any criminal offence (whether or not it is related to drugs) during the currency of this probation order, he will be in breach of this probation order, and he will be sentenced afresh for this offence.   If that occurs, no doubt, he would have demonstrated to the Court that he is a defendant without remorse, and that he cannot reform in an open setting.  It means that when he is to be sentenced afresh for Charge 1, the Court will have no alternative but to impose upon him a punitive and deterrent sentence, which means that he will have to go to prison, and go there for a long time commensurate with the purposes of punishment and deterrence.