HKSAR v. TSANG CHIU HUNG

HCCC 387/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 387 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charge

1.  On 6 November 2025, the defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The 1^st charge involved 69.1 grammes of a mixture containing 56.3 grammes of heroin hydrocholoride.  The 2^nd charge involved 283.4 grammes of a mixture containing 227.9 grammes of heroin hydrocholoride.  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 7 July 2025 and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed his guilty pleas to the two trafficking charges and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.  The facts of the case can be summarized as follows.

3.  On 25 July 2024, police officers intercepted the defendant in an estate in Ngau Tau Kok.  Upon search, they found inside the defendant’s shoulder bag three re-sealable plastic bags of heroin wrapped in a piece of diaper (the subject matter of the 1^st charge). Upon arrest and caution, the defendant admitted that he was going to sell the “4-Jai” and asked for a chance.

4.  A house search was later conducted at the defendant’s residence during which police officers found inside a cabinet in the living room one re-sealable plastic bag containing ten re-sealable plastic bags of heroin (the subject matter of the 2^nd charge), some empty re-sealable plastic bags and an electronic scale.  Upon arrest and caution, the defendant admitted that the “4-Jai” in the flat was the same as those which had been seized from him, and he had planned to sell them for money to pay for his medical expenses.

5.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant further admitted that:-

(1)  He would sell the heroin at a divan in Mongkok;

(2)  The heroin was given to him by “Ah Fat” whom he had met at a divan on a previous occasion;

(3)  As taught by “Ah Fat”, he had divided the heroin into 13 small packs. Before he was arrested by the police, he was on his way to Mongkok intending to sell the three plastic bags of heroin found on him;

(4)  In respect of the remaining ten plastic bags of heroin found in his residence, he had intended to sell them later; and

(5)  He would sell one ounce of heroin for HK$7,000. He would keep HK$l,000 for himself and give the remaining HK$6,000 to “Ah Fat”.

6.  The estimated street value of all the dangerous drug seized in the present case was HK$243,577.50.

7.  In the Summary of Facts, the defendant admitted that he had possessed all the dangerous drug seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Background and mitigation

8.  The defendant was born in January 1970 and he is now aged 56.  He had received education up to primary 2.

9.  The defendant was previously a driver employed for delivering goods and he was earning $17,000 monthly.  He quitted the job before this case for personal reasons.

10.  The defendant was divorced but he has a son aged 17 who is now studying Form 5.  The defendant was living with the son and had a close relationship with him.  Because of the present case, the son is now being taken care of by the defendant’s younger brother.

11.  The defendant has a mother in her 70’s.  She is now living in an elderly’s home.  She is suffering from brain disease and waiting for a surgery.

12.  The defendant had previously been brought before the courts on 14 occasions with a total of 25 convictions recorded, with only two of them being drug-related, namely two convictions of possession of dangerous drugs in 2016 and 2021 respectively.  

13.  His counsel, Mr. Wong, very fairly accepted that the defendant’s role in the present case was that of an actual trafficker, which is an aggravating factor.

14.  The defendant’s son has written a letter in mitigation in which he indicated that the defendant had reflected upon his own wrong-doings, now wishing to turn a new leaf; and that both the son and the defendant’s mother required his care and attention.  The son pleaded for the Court’s leniency.

Sentence

15.  In sentencing the defendant, I will follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

16.  The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drug in question.  In the present case, when the two charges involved a total quantity of 284.2 grammes of heroin (56.3 grammes plus 227.9 grammes), the notional overall starting point should be a term of about 13 years and 1 month’s imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 at §62. 

17.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court.  In short, the defendant was taking some of the heroin out with him in the street and keeping the rest in his residence, intending to sell them all for rewards.

18.  The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band the defendant should come.  As accepted by his counsel, the defendant’s role was that of an actual trafficker.

19.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors.  Because of the defendant’s role being an actual trafficker, I will enhance the notional starting point by 11 months, taking it to 14 years’ imprisonment.  Notwithstanding his list of previous convictions, I will not further enhance the starting point.

20.  The fifth step is to consider the mitigating factors, if any.  Given the seriousness of the offence, the only strong mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is his guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount to reduce the enhanced notional starting point of 14 years to a final and total sentence of 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

21.  In order to arrive at this final sentence, I will sentence the defendant in the following manner. For the 1^st charge, I will use a notional starting point of 8 years and 2 months, enhanced to 8 years and 9 months because of his role, to be discounted by one-third due to his plea, resulting in a sentence of 5 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.  For the 2^nd charge, I will use a notional starting point of 12 years and 4 months, enhanced to 13 years because of his role, to be discounted by one-third due to his plea, resulting in a sentence of 8 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  Taking into account the totality principle, I order 3 years and 6 months of the sentence for the 2^nd charge to run consecutively with the sentence for the 1^st charge, making a total sentence of 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

22.  Lastly, I consider these sentences fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offences and the defendant.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a total term of imprisonment for 9 years and 4 months.

Exhibits

23.  An Order in terms of the Prosecution’s application, not objected to by the Defence, was granted.