HKSAR v. POON NGAI SHING

HCCC 72/2024

[2026] HKCFI 4082

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 72 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant has been found guilty by the jury after trial on one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The particulars of the charge state that on 28 September 2022, at Flat M, 21^st Floor, Tower 3A, Emerald Bay, No. 8 Kwun Chui Road, Tuen Mun, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 61.963 kilogrammes of a solid containing 45.214 kilogrammes of cocaine.

2.  Regarding the personal background of the defendant, he was born in Hong Kong in September 1995. He is about to turn 31, and at the time of the offence he was 26 years of age.  He lived in a public housing estate with his mother.  His parents were divorced some time ago, and his father is living apart from the family.  The defendant has an elder sister who is married and living apart.  The defendant is single, and he has received education up to Secondary Form 1 level. 

3.  At the time of his arrest, he was working as a worker constructing booths and stores in shopping malls, exhibition centres and other locations.  Until his conviction in this case, he had a clear criminal record. 

4.  The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186. The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band (or bracket)  applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes.  It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant.  The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”.  The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced sentence”. 

5.  Regarding the first step, in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 at paragraph 62, the Court of Appeal held that between 15 kilogrammes and 30 kilogrammes of cocaine, the guideline tariff band is that of 27 to 30 years’ imprisonment.  Above 30 kilogrammes, sentences will fall within the discretion of judges, bearing in mind the practical and realistic ceiling of 35 years’ imprisonment as established in HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777.  The amount of narcotic involved in the present case is 45.214 kilogrammes of cocaine. 

6.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, from the evidence emerged during the trial, which include inter alia the relevant CCTV footage, observation evidence by the team of police officers, and the defendant’s admissions at the scene and in the subsequent VRI, I accept that the defendant was a courier or storekeeper of the drug seized. 

7.  Third, in view of the quantity of the drug involved and my finding of the defendant’s role and culpability, I consider that 31 years’ imprisonment would be the appropriate starting point for sentence after trial for the offence in question. 

8.  Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the starting point for sentence after trial.

9.  Fifth, I consider that there is no mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence. 

10.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 31 years’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the present case and in the circumstances of the defendant. 

11.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 31 years’ imprisonment.