HKSAR v. LEE SAI KIT AND ANOTHER

HCCC 237/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1844

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 237 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The 1st and 2nd defendants pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 14 July 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

2.  Before this court, the defendants confirmed their plea to the Amended Charge and their agreement to the Amended Summary of Facts through counsel.  The amendments are essentially immaterial to the sentence to be passed.  They relate to a slight reduction of the gross weight of the drugs involved, which has little bearing on the determination of the starting point for sentence.

3.  The particulars of the Amended Charge state that on 14 January 2023, at Room B, 4th Floor, King On House, Nos. 144-148 Lai Chi Kok Road, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, the 1st and 2nd defendants unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 1,633.08 grammes of a solid containing 1,420.08 grammes of cocaine. 

4.  The Amended Summary of Facts admitted by the defendants provides, inter alia, as follows. On 13 January 2023, police officers mounted an anti-narcotic operation and put Room B, 4th Floor, King On House, 144‑148 Lai Chi Kok Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong (“the Flat”) under observation.

5.  At about 2.40 am on 14 January 2023, the 2nd defendant was found leaving the Flat. The officers went up and intercepted the 2nd defendant for inquiry.  Nothing suspicious was found from the 2nd defendant’s person.

6.  While the 2nd defendant was being handled, other police officers entered the Flat and found the 1st defendant squatting down in one of the rooms (“the Room”) of the Flat.  The officers asked the 1st defendant to come out to the dining room of the Flat where a search warrant was executed.

7.  Upon search, the officers found the following items from the Room:

(1) an unlocked safe deposit box containing eight resealable plastic bags containing suspected cocaine (E1-8);

(2) a wine box containing 36 resealable plastic bags containing suspected cocaine (E9-12);

(3) three plastic bags containing 36 resealable plastic bags containing suspected cocaine (E13-14);

(4) a large number of plastic bags and resealable plastic bags;

(5) two electronic heat-sealing machines; and

(6) six electronic scales.

8.  It is now confirmed that E1 to E14 contained 1,633.08 grammes of a solid containing 1,420.08 grammes of cocaine.  The street value of the same was HK$1,459,760.

9.  The 1st and 2nd defendant were arrested.  Under caution, the 1st defendant admitted the offence and stated that he had committed the offence because he had owed people money.  On the other hand, the 2nd defendant remained silent under caution.

10.  The 2nd defendant’s DNA was found near the zip lock areas of the plastic bags in E2-4, 8, and 12.

11.  The 1st and 2nd defendant rented the Flat since 1 October 2022 for HK$13,000 per month. 

12.  It is expressly admitted that the 1st and 2nd defendant, on 14 January 2023, at the Flat, unlawfully trafficked in the dangerous drug, namely 1,633.08 grammes of a solid containing 1,420.08 grammes of cocaine.

13.  Regarding the personal background of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant, now aged 66, is married to the 2nd defendant.  The 1st defendant’s first marriage was in 1992 and out of the marriage, the 1st defendant has a son, now aged 30, working as an Uber driver, and a daughter, aged 28, working as a waitress.

14.  In 2016, the 1st defendant got married with the 2nd defendant. They met each other through introduction of a friend.  The other family members comprise an 89‑year‑old mother and six other siblings.

15.  The 1st defendant managed to finish Secondary Form 1 education and thereafter engaged in various jobs as a hairstylist, waiter, and a clerk in a finance company.  Since 2003, the 1st defendant became a taxi driver earning around $20,000 per month.  He would be responsible for the daily expenses of the household. 

16.  The 1st defendant has previous convictions for 11 offences, but none of which were concerned with dangerous drug or resulted in a custodial sentence.

17.  As to the circumstances leading to the commission of the present offence, it was in 2022 when the 1st defendant came to know a customer who he called “Nam Gor” (南哥).  I am told that in October 2022, the 2nd defendant related to the 1st defendant that she wanted some money to resettle the burial place of her father in her hometown.  The 1st defendant promised, saying that he would find his way to help.  The 1st defendant thus became under financial pressure.  He related this to Nam Gor who persuaded the 1st defendant to try cocaine to release his worries.  Foolishly enough, the 1st defendant believed this could assist and thus began to consume cocaine.

18.  Being indulgent into cocaine, it had serious impact on the 1st defendant in that he could not work after consumption.  Thus, his income became less.  The more worries he had, the more cocaine he took.  Upon seeing that, Nam Gor lured the 1st defendant into engaging in illegal activities by asking the 1st defendant to use his premises as storage with a reward of HK$3,000 per month as well as free supply of cocaine for his consumption.  It was under these circumstances that the 1st defendant committed the offence in question.

19.  Regarding the personal background of the 2nd defendant, she is 46 years of age.  She was born in mainland China and received education in the mainland.  She had attended a nursing course from 1995 to 1998.  She married the 1st defendant in 2016 and came to Hong Kong in 2022.  The 2nd defendant used to be a saleslady in the mainland, earning RMB3,500 per month.  Since her arrival in Hong Kong, she had become unemployed.  She has a clear record.

20.  The 2nd defendant felt ashamed for the harm she had caused to the society and was willing to shoulder the responsibility by admitting her guilt at the earliest opportunity.

21.  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 drug concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on 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 matter 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”.

22.  Regarding the first step, for 1,420.08 grammes of cocaine, the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, at paragraph 62.

23.  Second, concerning the defendants’ role and culpability, I accept that the 1st and 2nd defendants were storekeepers of the drug.

24.  Third, for 1,420.08 grammes of cocaine, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a “notional sentence after trial” of 19 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  Based on my finding of the defendants’ role and culpability under Step 2 above, I would adopt that as the “notional sentence after trial” in this case.  I see no reason for distinguishing the role between the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant.

25.  Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the “notional sentence after trial”.

26.  Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendants’ sentence is their timely guilty plea, for which I will give them a one-third discount.  Accordingly, the 1st and 2nd defendants’ sentence is reduced to 13 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.

27.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 13 years and 1 month’s imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and in the circumstances of the defendants. 

28.  Accordingly, the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant are each sentenced to 13 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.