HKSAR v. PANG CHEUK HO

HCCC 387/2024

[2026] HKCFI 65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 387 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of “Attempted to traffic in a dangerous drug” and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 11 November 2024. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed his plea and his agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of offence state that on 21 April 2023, at Ground Floor, No. 56 Tak Ku Ling Road, Kowloon City, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, the defendant attempted to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely 51,459.8 grammes of a mixture containing 38,778.9 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. 

3.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows. On 20 April 2023, Customs and Excise officers intercepted at the airport a consolidated consignment coming inbound from Thailand.  The consignment consisted of altogether 78 cartons.  Upon examination, officers found that among this consignment, three of the cartons contained altogether 37 bags of purported coffee powder (as appeared on their packaging).  In each of these bags were many smaller tin foil bags containing not coffee but heroin hydrochloride.  Upon later examination, the total dangerous drug concealed by the tin foil bags was 51,459.8 grammes of mixture containing 38,778.9 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. 

4.  Customs and Excise officers then replaced the contents of these three cartons with blank papers and documents (so as to imitate their original weight)  to serve as dummy cartons.  The officers then embarked on a controlled delivery operation with these dummy cartons. 

5.  The cartons’ consignee was a local logistic company called “Angel Family”, which was located at Ground Floor, No. 56 Tak Ku Ling Road, Kowloon City, Kowloon (“the Shop”).  On the same day of the consignment’s arrival, the Shop sent their driver to collect the entire consignment at the airport, and the driver was arrested there.  The driver told the officers how he worked as a GoGoVan driver and he was routinely hired by the Shop to collect consignments. 

6.  Customs and Excise officers then attended the Shop that night to investigate.  The person in charge of the Shop explained their service and how they would handle consignments for their customers:

(1)  The Thailand side of the business would help shipping goods to Hong Kong as provided by their clients, along with a list of the clients and recipients of the consigned goods.

(2)  Upon the arrival of the consignment, the Shop’s staff would then contact the recipients according to that list and by the telephone number provided (or by Facebook messages)  to collect the goods.

7.  The controlled delivery operation resumed the next day (21 April 2023)  morning, Customs and Excise officers disguised themselves in the Shop to monitor the delivery.  At 12.15 pm, a Shop staff received a call from a number (which transpired to be the defendant’s mobile phone number, registered and possessed by him upon later arrest).  The defendant enquired on those three cartons and asked to collect them.  The Shop staff told the defendant that the three cartons are ready for collection. 

8.  About 17 minutes later, the defendant arrived at the Shop, and he was served by the Shop staff.  The defendant asked to collect the three cartons of coffee on behalf of a Mr White and referred to (i)  the telephone number as provided by the cartons’ client, and (ii)  a reference number “3613” (same as the number written on the three cartons).  The defendant checked on the three cartons then signed on a receipt.  The defendant then called a GoGoVan to pick up the three cartons. 

9.  By about 1 pm, a GoGoVan driver Mr Yiu arrived at the Shop on his car.  The defendant loaded the three cartons in its trunk.  The defendant then boarded on Mr Yiu’s car and they drove off. 

10.  Customs and Excise officers then followed Mr Yiu’s car, which was heading to Kwun Tong.  The car entered a parking lot in an industrial building called Hoi Luen Industrial Centre.  The defendant got off the car.  He unloaded the three cartons and placed them on a trolley.  He then brought them to a lift and went to the 12th floor. 

11.  By around 1.31 pm, a team of Customs and Excise officers arrived at the 12th floor.  They intercepted the defendant at the corridor and arrested him. 

12.  Under caution, the defendant said he had just come out from Room 1201.  Defendant provided a password to unlock the gate for Room 1201.  The defendant then told the officers that he came out from unit M of Room 1201.  Officers brought the defendant to unit M and noticed that the unit was unlocked.  It was a small and empty storage or office unit.  They found the three dummy cartons inside the unit, being stacked against the wall at one corner.  The cartons were opened. 

13.  Customs and Excise enquired with the property agent responsible for the lease of unit M.  The agent explained how the defendant asked to visit the office unit for lease that same morning.  After a brief visit to unit M, the defendant verbally agreed to rent the unit for HK$3,300 per month.  The lease would run for two years (with one-year fixed term).  The defendant paid a cash deposit of HK$3,300 to the agent and the agent issued a receipt to the defendant, which was seized on the defendant upon his arrest. 

14.  The estimated street value of the heroin seized in the three cartons at the time of the offence was around HK$40,550,322.40 (at HK$788 per gramme). 

15.  The defendant now admits that he attempted to unlawfully traffic in the heroin hydrochloride seized in the three cartons. 

16.  Regarding the personal background of the defendant, the defendant is 23 years old.  He is single.  He received education up to Secondary Form 1 level and had worked as a lorry attendant.  The defendant has four previous convictions, one of which was related to dangerous drugs, that was for the offence of possession of a dangerous drug which was recorded in March 2024, and for which the defendant was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment. 

17.  I am told that the defendant’s father deserted the family whilst the defendant was very young and thus he has no recollection of his father at all.  As the mother of the defendant was unable to take care of the three children, the defendant and his elder brother were sent to a foster home.  They reunited with the mother when the defendant was studying in Primary 4.  Since then, the mother raised the children single-handedly. 

18.  I am further told that unfortunately, the defendant’s mother’s health deteriorated rapidly in recent years.  The defendant very much hoped that his mother could live a better life, but he was unable to earn a decent income to support his mother.  As a result, he was lured into earning quick money and agreed to collect the drugs the subject matter of this case. 

19.  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 capability 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 matters 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”. 

20.  Regarding step one, the narcotic contents of the dangerous drug involved in the present case is 38,778.9 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.  In HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 at paragraph 62, the Court of Appeal stated that for trafficking in above 30,000 grammes of heroin, sentences would fall within the discretion of judges, bearing in mind the practical and realistic ceiling of 35 years’ imprisonment, and the legislative maximum of life imprisonment for cases of truly exceptional gravity. 

21.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a courier or storekeeper, responsible for collecting the consignment of heroin.  However, this case clearly involves an

international element. This is an important factor when assessing the role and culpability of the defendant in order to identify the appropriate starting point for sentence. I have to bear in mind the quantity of narcotic being introduced into Hong Kong, which not only increases the supply of the particular dangerous drug but causes great harm to the community: see HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho, supra, at paragraph 74.

22.  Third, for 38,778.9 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, I would adopt an initial starting point of 30 years and 6 months’ imprisonment based solely on the quantity of the dangerous drug involved.  For the international element of this case as held above, I would increase the notional sentence after trial by 12 months, taking it to 31 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 

23.  Fourth, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the initial sentence after trial. 

24.  Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is his timely guilty plea for which I will give him a one-third discount.  This would reduce the defendant’s sentence to 21 years’ imprisonment. 

25.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 21 years’ imprisonment is a fair, just, and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and in the circumstances of the defendant. 

26.  The defendant is accordingly sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment.