HKSAR v. CHU KAR KEET

CACC 284/2019 [2026] HKCA1319

On appeal from [2019] HKCFI 2358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 284 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 319 OF 2018)

_______________

_______________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Zervos JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  With leave of the Court, the appellant appeals against his sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment, which was imposed on him by Deputy Judge Woodcock (as Woodcock J then was) (the judge) on 12 September 2019 upon his conviction after trial of a single count of trafficking, together with Tang Wai Keung (Tang), in a dangerous drug, namely 4,318.59 grammes of a solid and a powder containing 3,146.03 grammes of cocaine.  The respondent did not oppose the appellant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time.

2.  Mr H Y Wong, for the appellant, advances the sole ground of appeal that the appellant’s sentence should be reduced under the revised guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3)[1].  In HKSAR v Lam Man Tak[2], this Court held that the “state of affairs” leading to the revision of the sentencing guidelines commenced on 18 September 2018, and that the relevant date for their application was the date of sentence.  As the appellant was sentenced on 12 September 2019, he is to be regarded as still “in the system”, and is therefore entitled to have his sentence reconsidered under the revised guidelines.

3.  The brief facts of the case were as follows.  At about 4:20 pm on 6 July 2017, the police broke into a single-storey house located in a compound in Yuen Long where there were four units.  As the police prised open the gate to the house, the door to one of the units was opened and the appellant peered out.  When the police rushed towards the appellant, he tried to shut the door on them but without success.  The appellant and Tang were found inside the unit.  The police searched the unit and found many bags of cocaine and a variety of drug paraphernalia for packaging the drugs, including transparent resealable plastic bags and two digital scales.  In the open kitchen area, the police observed that someone had been heating up the cocaine and mixing it with sodium bicarbonate to make crack cocaine.  The street value of the cocaine seized was about HK$4,387,687.  The appellant was arrested and under caution stated that the cocaine belonged to Tang.  The unit was rented by Tang and a female tenant.

4.  Earlier in the proceedings, Tang pleaded guilty to the count and took no further part in the case.  The appellant proceeded to trial and was convicted of the count by the jury.  He did not give evidence, but relied on his statement under caution that the drugs belonged to Tang.

5.  The judge, applying the previous guidelines for cocaine adopted a starting point of 25 years’ imprisonment which was the sentence she imposed on the appellant.  She considered that there were no aggravating factors to warrant an enhancement or mitigating factors to warrant a reduction in the sentence.  She took the view that the appellant was not the mastermind and did not further enhance the sentence for his role and culpability. 

6.  According to the revised guidelines, trafficking between 1,500 grammes and 5,000 grammes of cocaine would correspond to a term of 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment.  The arithmetic starting point for trafficking in 3,146.03 grammes of cocaine is 21 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.

7.  As the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the revised guidelines, this Court is required to sentence him afresh based on its interpretation of the facts and the application of the relevant sentencing principles.  The respondent argues that given the quantity of drugs and the packaging paraphernalia for crack cocaine, the appellant was involved in the packaging and dissemination of the dangerous drugs and that, as a consequence, this heightened his culpability and aggravated his offending (HKSAR v Islam Azharul[3]). We agree and we would enhance the appellant’s sentence to 22 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

8.  The appellant was 24 ½ years old at the time of the offence and before his arrest he lived with his father in a public housing estate after his parents divorced.  During his period of imprisonment, his mother and father passed away and he is now basically on his own.  To his credit, he enrolled in a distance-learning programme at the Hong Kong Metropolitan University, taking subjects in Chinese literature and humanities, and is expected to complete a Bachelor of Arts next year.  We accept that he is doing the best he can to improve his life and start afresh.  This positive attitude and conduct in seeking to rehabilitate himself is very encouraging and credit should be given for it.  In the exceptional circumstances of treating the appellant’s subsequent conduct after his offending as a mitigating factor, we propose to reduce the notional starting point of 22 years and 6 months’ imprisonment to 22 years’ imprisonment.

9.  Accordingly, the appellant’s appeal against sentence is allowed.  We quash his sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment and substitute it with a sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment.

[1]  HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

[2]  HKSAR v Lam Man Tak [2026] 2 HKLRD 199, at [54].

[3]  HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644, at [14].