COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug before the magistracy on 19 January 2026. The 1st count alleges that on 21 January 2025, outside Wing Kit House, Wing Cheong Estate, in Sham Shui Po, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 70.62 grammes of a solid containing 60.65 grammes of ketamine. The 2nd count alleges that on the same day, at Room 3115, Wing Kit House, Wing Cheong Estate, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 186 grammes of a solid containing 156 grammes of ketamine.
The defendant agreed to the Summary of Facts and was committed to this court for sentence. He confirmed his plea and the admission to the Summary of Facts today and his conviction for both counts was duly recorded.
The facts giving rise to the offences are these. At about 6.44 pm on 21 January 2025, the defendant was intercepted by police officers as he emerged from Wing Kit House. Upon search, the police found a black plastic bag on his person. He had four keys, two mobile phones on him.
The black plastic bag found on his person was found to contain the following: a plastic bag containing 25 plastic bags with markings of “10” containing a total of 13.2 grammes of a solid containing 11.3 grammes of ketamine; a plastic bag containing six plastic bags with markings of “10” containing a total of 15.1 grammes of a solid containing 12.9 grammes of ketamine; a plastic bag containing 20 plastic bags with markings of “19” containing a total of 10.8 grammes of a solid containing 9.33 grammes of ketamine; a plastic bag containing two plastic bags with markings of “19” containing a total of 4.82 grammes of a solid containing 4.12 grammes of ketamine; and a plastic bag containing two plastic bags with markings of “19” containing a total of 26.7 grammes of a solid containing 23 grammes of ketamine.
Upon his arrest, the defendant admitted under caution that he delivered drugs for others with a view to earning quick money.
Later the same day, the police entered Room 3115 with keys found on the defendant. By using one of the keys found, the door to a locked bedroom inside Room 3115 was opened. Upon search, the police found a heat sealer and a black plastic bag on the bed inside the bedroom containing the following items: a plastic bag containing 186 grammes of a solid containing 156 grammes of ketamine; a spoon; a tray; an electronic scale; and a quantity of transparent resealable plastic bags as well as a blue marker were found.
The defendant was further arrested for trafficking in the dangerous drugs found inside the flat and he admitted under caution that he had trafficked in the same for others.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted, amongst others, that the dangerous drugs found on him and inside the bedroom were ketamine. He had joined a Telegram group named “Work Group (Nam Cheong)” with his identity card number, mobile phone number, and address.
Upon instruction from members of the Telegram group, he collected ketamine on 10 and 19 January 2025 from different persons at the ground floor of Wing Kit House. He brought those drugs to his residence at Room 3115 where he weighed and photographed those drugs. He then repackaged the drugs into smaller plastic bags using a heat sealer and the electronic scale found which he had purchased. He then wrote the numbers “10” and “19” on the plastic bags to identify the dates on which he collected the ketamine.
The defendant then disseminated the plastic bags containing ketamine to various drivers who were arranged using WhatsApp. The defendant received $1,000 per job paid through Alipay, an electronic payment system, and he admitted that he had received monetary rewards to pay off debt. He last received such payment on 15 January 2025. He admitted keeping the drugs in his bedroom to which he had the key and he lived alone at the flat in question.
He made admission as to references to the terms “stone” and “needle” in the Telegram group messages which he explained meant ketamine. He said he had never met any of the members in the Telegram group and that he was not himself a drug addict.
The estimated street value of the quantity of drugs seized was to the tune of $126,000.
By his guilty plea and admission to the Summary of Facts, the defendant admits that at all material times he knowingly possessed the drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
Defendant’s background
The defendant was 24 years old at the time of the offences and he is now 26 years of age. He has a clear record and he is single. He was born in mainland China and came to Hong Kong in 2002. The defendant received education up to higher diploma level in Hong Kong and he had previously worked as an assistant engineer earning approximately $18,000 per month. He was unemployed at the time of the offences.
In mitigation, counsel for the defendant Mr Chan submitted that the defendant’s mother had a major operation in 2018 and relied heavily on the defendant for support. The defendant is said to be a filial son and it is urged on his behalf that the court should treat him with utmost leniency so that he could resume his filial duties as early as possible.
The sole mitigation that is available is clearly his guilty plea on a timely basis to both offences which is said to demonstrate his remorsefulness.
The court has also received three mitigation letters submitted by the defendant himself, his mother, and a Reverend Lau of Evangelical Free Church of China Victory Church.
The defendant expressed his deep remorse in the mitigation letter that he wrote. He stated that he had committed the offences under the bad influence of friends and out of desperation to repay gambling debts. He expressed shame for having disappointed his mother and pledged to reform.
It is also said on his behalf that he has demonstrated his determination to turn over a new leaf by enrolling in online courses whilst in custody. And it is said that he plans to return to his previous occupation in civil engineering and pursue further studies upon release from prison in due course.
The mother also wrote and pleaded for leniency on the defendant’s behalf. The mother vouched for the defendant which she described as a kind and filial son. She recounted how the defendant had cared for her during her illness. She also emphasised the defendant’s genuine remorse and asked the court to give the defendant a chance.
In the letter written by Reverend Lau, it is stated that the defendant has the ability to maintain stable employment over a long period. Reverend Lau reckoned that due to greed and gambling causing the defendant to be in debt and under the influence of bad friends, the defendant committed the present offences. Reverend Lau also observed that the defendant is truly remorseful and is determined not to gamble again.
The court would of course take into account these letters and the matters stated therein. It is obviously an indication of remorse, but the relevance of such indication of remorse would be subsumed by the discount for his early plea of guilty in which the court would give full weight and accord him the full one-third discount.
As to his personal circumstances and those of his mother, it is well established that such circumstances will count for little in terms of mitigation unless they are exceptional, which are not in the present case.
Sentencing
The maximum sentence upon conviction on indictment for trafficking in a dangerous drug is that of life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million. In the present case, there are seized dangerous drugs from the defendant’s possession at two different locations and the court has in mind the approach as stated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75. It is established in that case that when sentencing two trafficking offences involving different quantities of dangerous drugs found in the defendant’s possession on the same day but at different locations, the sentencing judge should regard the two offences as representing one occasion of possession of the total quantity of drugs and impose sentences for both offences for that total quantity of drugs and then make the sentences concurrent with one another. Such an approach would more truly reflect the defendant’s culpability.
Having regard to the proximity in time and the nature of the drugs seized, the defendant in this case shall be sentenced on that basis, namely that he was in overall possession of the drugs as particularised in the two counts.
The court also bears in mind the six-step approach as set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 as complemented in the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
According to the six-step approach, the first step would be to identify the applicable guideline tariff and the sentencing band applicable. In this case, the defendant trafficked in one type of dangerous drugs, namely a total quantity of 216.65 grammes of ketamine. The applicable sentencing guideline for ketamine is set out in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. The starting point for trafficking in 50 grammes to 300 grammes of ketamine would be between 6 and 9 years’ imprisonment after trial according to the relevant tariff.
Step two requires an assessment of the defendant’s role and culpability. On the facts of this case, as revealed in the Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant, his role was slightly higher than that of a mere courier or storekeeper. He admitted under caution that he repackaged the drugs seized in the room for delivery to others and he was paid $1,000 per job.
The drugs found on his person the subject of the first count were also marked differently with the markings of “10” and “19” to identify the different dates on which he received the ketamine. As stated in the Summary of Facts, he also admitted to be involved in disseminating the drugs for others and he had joined a Telegram group in which different members of the group were involved in arranging and discussing the trafficking of the drugs in question. These show that the defendant’s role was higher than that of a courier or storekeeper and added to his culpability, which should appropriately be reflected in the starting point to be adopted for sentence.
This brings me to the third step, which is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes, given the particular circumstances of the offences in question and the role of the defendant as I have just identified.
The sentencing guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs are based upon the role of the defendant as a courier or storekeeper. According to the tariff in Hii Siew Cheng, the mathematical starting point for trafficking in 216.65 grammes of ketamine would be about 8 years’ imprisonment.
Taking into account the defendant’s role, as I have just identified which was higher than that of a courier or storekeeper, I find there to be justification for enhancing the starting point by 6 months to 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. That would be the notional sentence after trial for such quantity of drugs involved and taking into account the role of the defendant.
The fourth step is to consider whether there is any aggravating factor which aggravates the seriousness of the offence and justifies an increase in the sentence. I find there to be no other aggravating factors warranting a further enhancement. There is only one type of drugs involved, namely ketamine, which the defendant has dealt with in the present case and there are, as I said, no other aggravating factors.
The fifth step is an examination of relevant mitigating factors. As I have said, the defendant is entitled to the full one-third discount of his sentence on account of his early plea to both offences. Giving the full one-third discount, the final sentence would be brought down to 68 months, namely 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
Having taken into account all the circumstances of both the offences and the offender, the defendant, himself, the court considers the final sentence imposed for both counts, namely 5 years and 8 months, to be fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances and that the ultimate sentence of 5 years and 8 months is not out of proportion to the defendant’s overall criminality.
Now, defendant, you are sentenced to 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for each of the two charges and the sentences are to run wholly concurrently with each other. The sentence is 5 years and 8 months.