HKSAR v. WU HOK LEUNG

HCCC 185/2025

[2026] HKCFI 426

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 185 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 22 January 2024 at around 10.52 pm, the defendant was intercepted by the police in the vicinity of The Reach, No. 11 Shap Pat Heung Road, Yuen Long.

Upon search on the defendant, four resealable plastic bags with 117 plastic bags of drugs in them were found inside the bag carried by the defendant. The drugs were later on confirmed to be a total of 77.4 grammes of a solid containing 59.3 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride.

The residence of the defendant at The Reach was searched and a large quantity of drugs were found inside plastic bags placed at various places in the premises. Some paraphernalia were also found, including an electronic scale and resealable plastic bags. The drugs found were later on confirmed to be a total of respectively 2,194.65 grammes of a solid containing 1,650.51 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride, 142.2 grammes of a solid containing 17.19 grammes of cocaine, and 24.5 grammes of a mixture containing 19.81 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

Under caution, the defendant admitted he intended to sell the drugs found on him and his residence to others.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant said a person named Ah Fat taught him to earn money by drug trafficking and he would pick up drugs at a place in Yuen Long and store the drugs in his residence. He acted on the instructions of Ah Fat to repack the drugs and dropped off the repacked drugs on the streets for others to pick up, and he would receive 2,000 to $3,000 each time as rewards. He had done it for eight to 10 times and received about $30,000 in total. He used the electronic scale to weigh the drugs and the resealable plastic bags for repacking.

The estimated street value of the drugs involved is in total HK$2,413,238.

The defendant is now 55 years old. He is not married and was living with his girlfriend in the subject premises. He has no record of drug-related offences. According to Mr Yuen, counsel for the defendant, the defendant received education up to Form 5 level and before his arrest he was a taxi driver earning around $15,000 per month.

In mitigation, Mr Yuen submitted that the defendant is now very remorseful, which can be verified by the letters written to the court by the defendant and his brother asking for the court’s leniency.

In consideration of sentence, this court has to adopt the six-step approach set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, and follow the guidelines set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

Charge 2 involved two different kinds of drugs. Mr Yuen has set out by the two tables in his written submission applying the absurdity test, the conversion test, and the ratio test, adopting the guideline as laid down in Huang Ruifang, in respect of the quantity of drugs in Charge 2 and also the overall quantity for both charges.

I am not minded to set out in detail the results arrived at by Mr Yuen. It is sufficient to say that the appropriate starting point for sentencing for Charge 1, adopting the relevant guidelines, is 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. And for Charge 2, 20 years and 3 months. And the appropriate starting point and taking into account the overall quantity, it is slightly more than that of Charge 2.

Regarding the role of the defendant, although the defendant used his residential unit for drug trafficking and repacked the drugs there, I am not minded to adopt a higher starting point because of his role.

In the circumstances, for Charge 1, I adopt a starting point of 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, and for Charge 2, 20 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

Apart from the defendant’s guilty plea, there is no valid mitigating factor. For Charge 1, the sentence is therefore reduced to 5 years and 6 months for the defendant’s guilty plea. For Charge 2, the sentence is reduced to 13 years and 6 months for the defendant’s guilty plea. The sentences of the two charges shall run concurrently.