HKSAR v. POON TIK LONG

HCCC 62/2025

[2025]HKCFI 5144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 62 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed on the 20 February 2025 to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The defendant confirmed his plea and admission to the Summary of Facts before me and his conviction was duly recorded.

The particulars of the charge are that the defendant on the 8 June 2023 outside Ground Floor, No. 27 Wa Fung Street, Hung Hom, Kowloon, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 501 grammes of solid containing 434 grammes of ketamine.

The fact of the case that the defendant has admitted can be summarised as follows for present purposes. On the 8 June 2023 in the afternoon, police officers conducted an anti-crime patrol in Hung Hom. Around 5.44 pm, the defendant was observed acting suspiciously upon noticing the police at Wa Fung Street. He immediately turned around to flee. When doing so he discarded a black paper bag outside No. 27 Wa Fung Street.

The police retrieved the said bag and intercepted him nearby. Upon inspection of the said bag, the following items were found: A resealable plastic bag containing 251 grammes of a solid containing 217 grammes of ketamine. A resealable plastic bag containing 250 grammes of a solid containing 217 grammes of ketamine.

The defendant also had with him two mobile phones, five keys and cash of HK$22,151.40. The defendant was arrested, under caution, he remained silent. The narcotic content of the above drug was subsequently confirmed by the government chemist to be 501 grammes of a solid containing 434 grammes of ketamine.

In subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant only stated that he was unemployed and with no income and that he was not a drug addict. He remained silent to other questions. The total estimated street value of the drug seized was HK$252,504.

By his admission to the Summary of Facts, the defendant had accepted that at all material times he was in possession of the seized drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Previous Convictions

The defendant had seven previous convictions and on three separate occasions, two in 2006 and one in 2011, which were all unrelated to drugs.

The Background and Mitigation

The defendant was born in Hong Kong and is now 33. His education level is up to Form 1. He resided with his parents. His father is aged 55 and his mother is aged 52. He is divorced with no children. The court was informed that at the time of the offence, the defendant had been unemployed for four months after being laid off as a funeral service worker.

The court is also told that a tumour has been discovered in his liver and that the situation is currently under medical investigation, pending further diagnosis and treatment. It was submitted in mitigation that at the time of the offence, the defendant was instructed by a man to deliver the drugs. He was arrested on the way. He committed the offence for financial reasons.

Miss Vivian Wong, counsel for the defendant, informed the court that the defendant is remorseful for the offence and pleads for leniency. It was not suggested that the drugs were for self-consumption.

Handwritten mitigation letters by the defendant’s mother and the Deputy General Secretary of Wu Oi Christian Centre were also submitted to the court and duly considered.

Miss Wong submitted that the defendant was merely a courier and that there are no aggravating factors in this case.

Sentencing

The maximum sentence and conviction upon indictment for trafficking in a dangerous drug is life imprisonment and a fine of 5 million.

Applying the Herry Jane Yusuphprinciples

The six-step sentencing approach introduced by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Li Ming Ho are applied as follows:

Step one, the applicable guideline tariff band

Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question. The sentencing guidelines as stated in the case of the Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng for ketamine are applied. For 434 grammes of ketamine, the applicable band is 9 to 12 years.

Step two, role and culpability

The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant. In light of the evidence adduced and the facts admitted, in particular circumstances that the defendant was found carrying and discarding the drugs, I accept Miss Wong’s submission that the role played by the defendant was a mere courier.

Step three, the relevant band within the guidelines

the arithmetical application of the tariff for 434 grammes of ketamine would lead to a notional starting point of 10 years, 4 months’ imprisonment. Based on my finding that the defendant’s role as a mere courier, I shall adopt a starting point of 10 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

Step four, aggravating factors

Although the defendant has seven previous convictions as stated above, they are unrelated to drugs. I accept Miss Wong’s submission not to treat them as an aggravating factor in this case. There are no other aggravating factors that would warrant an enhancement.

Step five, the mitigating factors

Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the only strong mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s guilty plea, which was entered at the earliest opportunity. Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount. That brings the sentence down from 10 years, 4 months’ imprisonment to 6 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

Step six, the totality

This case does not engage the situation of multiple counts or multiple aggravating factors. The sentence is fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

The final sentence

Accordingly, The defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years and 10 months.

Mr Poon, please stand up. The court sentences you to imprisonment for 6 years and 10 months.