HKSAR v. HONG CHIN MING

DCCC 40/2025

[2026] HKDC 85

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 40 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

Summary of facts

2.  At about 2 am on 13 July, 2024, the police intercepted the Defendant who was sitting in the driver seat of ZH6043 outside 43-45 Shek Kip Mei Street.

3.  Upon search of ZH6043, a recycle bag was found inside the storage box between the driver seat and the front passenger seat:-

(a)  2 plastic bags containing a total of 6.93 g of cannabis in herbal form;

(b)  33 plastic bags containing a narcotic content of 3.9 g of cocaine;

(c)  95 plastic bags contains a narcotic content of 59.58 g of ketamine.

4.  The Defendant was arrested for an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs.  He remains silence under caution.

5.  A total of HK$5,625.50 of cash was found on the Defendant’s person.  

6.  Subsequent investigation revealed that the Defendant rented the vehicle from a rental company for a month from 9 July 2024 to 9 August 2024 for HK$7,000.

Criminal record

7.  Since 1980 to 2024, the Defendant has 17 criminal convictions records, amongst them were:-

(a)  10 charges of possession of dangerous drugs (last conviction in 2024 - sentence to 10 weeks imprisonment. He was discharged in April 2024);

(b)  2 charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs[1];

(c)  One charge of keeping a divan[2].

Background of the Defendant

8.  The Defendant is 60 years old.  In his second marriage in 2019, the Defendant has a 5 years old daughter.  They are now living in Shenzhen.  One month before his arrest, he was allocated a public housing unit.  He plans to move his family from China to live with him.

9.  The Defendant’s mother (90)  is currently living in an elderly home.

10.  The Defendant worked previously as a lorry driver, earned about $20,000 per month.  However, he lost his job due to the onset of the pandemic.  As such, he worked as a part-time driver and his income was significantly reduced to $8,000 per month.

Sentence

11.  In the present case, there are 3 types of dangerous drugs being trafficked:-

(a)  6.93 g of cannabis in herbal form[3];

(b)  3.9 g of cocaine[4];

(c)  59.58 g of ketamine[5].

12.  As such, there is a 7 steps sentencing approach as set out in HKSAR v Islam Majharul[6]:-

(1)  Among the 3 types of drugs, the defence accepted combine approach in sentencing process and the most serious drug in term of potency is cocaine. Therefore the correct base drug in determining the starting point is cocaine.

(2)  The applicable sentencing bracket according to the relevant sentencing guidelines for the 3 types of drugs are as follow:-

(a)  6.93 g of cannabis in herbal form in the sentencing bracket[7] is up to 16 months. As such, the starting point is 0.1 month. It is clear that the quantity of cannabis has a very insignificant bearing in the sentencing process.

(b)  3.9 g of ketamine falls into the sentencing bracket[8]of 2 to 4 years. As such, the starting point is 3 years and 2 months.

(c)  59.58 g of ketamine falls into the sentencing bracket[9] of 6 to 9 years. As such the starting point is 6 years and 1.4 months.

(3)  The prosecution and the defence agreed of the results of the absurdity test, conversion test and the ratio test as follow:-

(a)  Absurdity test – 8 years and 4months.

(b)  Conversion test (to cocaine)  – 6 years and 4 months.

(c)  Ratio test – 6 years and 3 months.

(4)  I take 3 years and 2 months as the starting point and enhance the starting point by 3 years and 1 month to take into account of the quantity of ketamine. That arrives at 6 years and 3 months.

As to the Defendant’s role and culpability

13.  The defence said that the Defendant remained silent under caution, therefore there is no evidence as to the role of the Defendant he played in the present offence.

14.  I disagree:-

(a)  At the time of his arrest, the Defendant only worked as a part-time driver, making a total of $8,000 per month to support himself and his young family.

(b)  The Defendant just entered into a one month rental car contract 4 days prior to his arrest for a sum of $7,000. That account for almost 87.5 % of his monthly income. Not to mention he has to pay $13,000 as deposit for the car rental and patrol for the running of the car. There is a specific purpose for him to rent ZH6043. He was just released from prison about 3 months before his arrest, he was allocated a public housing unit before his arrest, he has financial responsibility towards his family. He also needs money to set up his new home to bring his family from China to live with him. There is a strong financial interest for him to commit the present offence.

(c)  There were large numbers[10] of individual packed packets of drugs to cater for a wider market ready for sell or for distribution.

(d)  The Defendant having spent $7,000 on the car rental, he was found to have about $5,600 of cash with him. Where did he get the money from?

(e)  The Defendant was found sitting in the driving seat in the early hours of the morning[11], the question to ask what was he doing there in Shum Shui Po[12] when all the shops were closed and there was no commercial activities?

(f)  It is clear to me that the only irresistible inference to be drawn was that he was acting as a direct street trafficker and his role and culpability required a higher starting point.

(g)  As such, the notional starting point should be enhanced by 6 months.

15.  Aggravating factor:-

(a)  The Defendant has a long list of criminal records involving dangerous drugs offence, two of them were trafficking in dangerous drugs. He committed the present offence just 3 months after his discharge from prison for an offence of possession of dangerous drugs. I take this collectively as one aggravating factor[13].

(b)  There were 3 types of dangerous drugs. The defence asked me not to consider this as an aggravating factor as 1 type of drug (cocaine)  – was relatively smaller in quantity. I disagree. That quantity alone, attracks a starting point of 3 years and 2 months. As said in the judgment of HKSAR v Choy Wing Sing[14] that “as pointed by the respondent the judge did not take into account the following aggravating factors that may have resulted in an enhancement of his sentence: the trafficking involved 2 drugs, which would have catered for a wider market.

16.  As such, there are 2 aggravating factors for enhancement of sentence.  I consider that 6 months’ enhancement to the starting point is appropriate.

17.  The total sentence aggregates to 7 years and 3 months[15], given 1/3 discount, it comes down to 58 months.

18.  The Defendant is ordered to serve a sentence of 58 months imprisonment.