區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Ivy Chui14/4/2025[2025] HKDC 681
DCCC854/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 854/2024
C [2025] HKDC 681 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 854 OF 2024
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LIU CHUN LOK I
---------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Ivy Chui K
Date: 15 April 2025
L L
Present: Mr Au-Yeung Shun Hei, Dimitri, Senior Public Prosecutor,
M for HKSAR M
Mr Ah-Weng Jonathan Winston, instructed by K B Chau &
N N
Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
O Offence: [1] Trafficking in dangerous drugs（販運危險藥物） O
P
[2] Driving in excess of speed limit（超速駕駛） P
[3] Driving while disqualified（於取消駕駛資格期間駕駛）
Q Q
[4] Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance（沒
R 有第三者保險而使用汽車） R
S [5] Failing to provide a specimen of blood or urine（沒有提 S
供血液樣本或尿液樣本）
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
----------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
----------------------------------------
D D
E INTRODUCTION E
F F
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 1, a charge of
G trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the G
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap 134); Charge 2, a charge of driving in
H H
excess of speed limit, contrary to section 41(1)(a) of the Road Traffic
I Ordinance (Cap 374) (“RTO”); Charge 3, a charge of driving while I
disqualified, contrary to section 44(1)(b) of RTO; Charge 4, a charge of
J J
using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, contrary to section 4(1)
K and (2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance K
(Cap 272); and Charge 5, a charge of failing to provide a specimen of blood
L L
or urine, contrary to sections 39P(1) and 39S of RTO. That is a total of 5
M charges. M
N N
2. I found the Defendant guilty as charged after he admitted the
O Summary of Facts. O
P P
THE FACTS
Q Q
3. Facts admitted by the Defendant disclosed that at about 10:47
R R
am on 20 September 2023, PC28605 (PW1) used a laser speed detection
S gun near Chainage 7.9N, Tsing Kwai Highway, Tsing Yi and detected that S
a private car bearing registration number UD6697 (the “Car”) driven by the
T T
Defendant was travelling at a speed of 125 km/h, which exceeded the 80
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
km/h speed limit of the material section of the road (Charge 2). As a result,
C PC24054 (PW2) intercepted the Car at Chainage 8.5N. C
D D
4. When being requested, the Defendant failed to provide any
E valid driving licence. Upon further enquiry, it was revealed that the E
Defendant had been disqualified from driving from 1 August 2023 to 31
F F
October 2023 (Charge 3) and he used the Car on a road when there was not
G in force in relation to the user thereof by him such a policy of insurance or G
such a security in respect of third party risks as complied with the
H H
requirements of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks)
I Ordinance (Cap 272) (Charge 4). I
J J
5. At about 11:15 am, PW2 arrested the Defendant for “Driving
K in excess of speed limit”, “Driving while disqualified” and “Using a vehicle K
without third party risk insurance”. Under caution, the Defendant said he
L L
was speeding as he was rushing home.
M M
6. At about 11:30 am, PW2 took the Defendant back to the Car.
N N
When PW2 opened the door of the driver’s seat, he noticed that on the floor
O there was a transparent re-sealable bag containing white substance. O
Suspecting that the Defendant was in possession of dangerous drugs, PW2
P P
searched the area under the driver’s seat and the following items were found:
Q Q
(a) 19 plastic bags containing a total of 11.1 grammes of a
R R
solid containing 9.65 grammes of ketamine;
S S
(b) 1 plastic bag (with the Chinese characters “50 needles”
T T
written on it) containing 36 plastic bags containing a
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
total of 22.5 grammes of a solid containing 19.5
C grammes of ketamine; C
D D
(c) 1 plastic bag containing 35 plastic bags containing a
E total of 9.46 grammes of a solid containing 7.74 E
grammes of cocaine;
F F
G (d) 1 plastic bag (with the number “40” written on it) G
containing 13 plastic bags containing a total of 3.41
H H
grammes of a solid containing 3.08 grammes of cocaine.
I I
7. Upon further search, 5 plastic bags containing a total of 1.33
J J
grammes of a solid containing 1.21 grammes of cocaine were found inside
K a paper box under the front passenger seat. K
L L
8. At about 12:12 pm on the same day, PW2 arrested the
M Defendant for “Trafficking in dangerous drugs”. Under caution, the M
Defendant claimed that the dangerous drugs were his.
N N
O 9. Between 12:13 pm and 12:16 pm, PC27466 (PW3) conducted O
a search of the Defendant’s shoulder bag and found:
P P
Q (a) 2 plastic bags containing a total of 0.5 grammes of a Q
solid containing 0.47 grammes of cocaine;
R R
S (b) RMB 400 and HK$6,840. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
10. At about 12:17 pm on the same day, PW2 arrested the
C Defendant for “Trafficking in dangerous drugs”. Under caution, the C
Defendant claimed that the dangerous drugs were his (Charge 1).
D D
E 11. Government Chemist (PW4) subsequently confirmed the E
above narcotic contents, and there was in total 29.15 grammes of ketamine
F F
and 12.50 grammes of cocaine.
G G
12. The estimated street value of all the drugs was HK$64,126.
H H
I 13. The Defendant was later escorted to Tsing Yi Police Station. I
At about 2:12 pm on the same day, PW2 demanded the Defendant to
J J
provide blood samples for a laboratory test, pursuant to Section 39P of the
K Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap 374). The Defendant refused to co-operate K
and thus at about 2:17 pm, PW2 arrested the Defendant for “Failing to
L L
provide a specimen of blood” (Charge 5).
M M
14. Between 11:50 pm on 20 September 2023 and 12:24 am on 21
N N
September 2023 and from 12:32 am to 12:37 am on the same day,
O DPC13436 (PW5) and DSGT52476 (PW6) conducted two video-recorded O
interviews with the Defendant. Under caution, he stated, inter alia, the
P P
following:
Q Q
(a) He was asked by an unknown male to pick up the drugs
R R
at San Po Kong and to pass them to someone in Tuen
S Mun; S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
(b) The Car was lent to the Defendant by the said unknown
C male at Yau Ma Tei; C
D D
(c) The Defendant knew that he was carrying ketamine and
E cocaine; E
F F
(d) The Defendant was given to understand that “50 needles”
G refers to “ketamine”; G
H H
(e) He admitted having put the dangerous drugs underneath
I the seat of the Car; I
J J
(f) The Defendant trafficked in dangerous drugs as he had
K borrowed a lot of money due to gambling; K
L L
(g) He was aware that he had been disqualified from driving.
M M
BACKGROUND AND CRIMINAL RECORD
N N
O 15. The Defendant is now 32 years old. He is an only child and O
received education up to Form 5 level. He is single and prior to his arrest
P P
he was living with his parents in a village house. I was told that his parents
Q were concerned with his present case. Q
R R
16. The Defendant was working as a logistics driver, earning
S about $15,000 per month at the time of the arrest. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
17. The Defendant has a clear record. He however has a poor
C traffic record. Since July 2020, he has 5 convictions and 30 fixed penalties C
including speeding, failing to comply with traffic signals, failing to carry
D D
driving licence when driving, failing to comply with road markings,
E overloading, and driving goods vehicle without being securely fastened E
with seat belt.
F F
G MITIGATION G
H H
18. Mr Ah-Weng, Counsel for the Defendant, provided me with
I his written submission for mitigation. It was submitted that the Defendant I
has pleaded guilty to all five charges at the first available opportunity and
J J
was truly remorseful. He is a young man who failed to appreciate
K previously the consequences of his own actions. He expresses regret for K
his fault in the present offences which had a great impact on his family.
L L
Despite his imminent period of substantial imprisonment, he still has his
M whole life ahead to turn things around. M
N N
19. A letter of mitigation by the defendant and his mother were
O produced to this court. In the letter, the Defendant explained that he O
resorted to trafficking in dangerous drugs for others in an effort to repay the
P P
gambling debts. He was very remorseful and promised to behave in the
Q future. Both his retired parents returned to work to repay his debts, and Q
they still visited him regularly regardless of conditions. He asked for early
R R
release so that he could take up the responsibilities to look after his parents
S and to allow them to retire properly. S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
20. The Defendant’s mother spoke to his previous good character
C and indicated that the present offences were committed entirely out of C
character. She asked for leniency from this Court.
D D
E SENTENCING CONSIDERATONS E
F F
Charge 1 “Trafficking in dangerous drugs”
G G
21. Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a serious and reprehensible
H H
offence. The law relating to the sentencing of drug trafficking offenders
I was refined and clarified by the Court of Appeal in a case of HKSAR v I
Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. In that judgment, Macrae VP in
J J
giving the judgment of the court set out a six-step approach to the
K sentencing of offenders convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug. K
L L
22. With these general principles in mind, I now turn to the six
M steps laid down in that judgment. M
N N
23. There are two types of drugs involved in the trafficking charge,
O namely 29.15 grammes of ketamine and 12.50 grammes of cocaine. O
P P
Cocaine
Q Q
24. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (黃瑞芳),
R R
CACC 106/2022 (unreported, 5 March 2025) has modified the guidelines
S S
for trafficking in heroin and cocaine for all quantities. For the quantity of
T 12.50 grammes of cocaine, the relevant guideline band is between 10 T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
grammes and 50 grammes for which the sentence is between 5 and 8 years’
C imprisonment. C
D D
Ketamine
E E
25. For ketamine, the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in
F F
ketamine are found in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng (許守城 )
G [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. For the quantity of 29.15 grammes of ketamine, the G
relevant guideline band is between 10 grammes and 50 grammes for which
H H
the sentence is between 4 and 6 years’ imprisonment.
I I
26. It was submitted that the Defendant in his video-recorded
J J
interview said under caution, inter alia, that he was only asked by unknown
K male to pick up the ketamine and cocaine at San Po Kong and to pass to K
someone in Tuen Mun. The Defendant further explained in the interview
L L
that he trafficked the drugs because he had borrowed a lot of money.
M Counsel urged the court to consider that there was no evidence to show that M
the Defendant was dealing in dangerous drugs to others (ie actual/direct
N N
trafficking). Having regard to the circumstances of this case, I am prepared
O O
to accept that the Defendant acted as a courier.
P P
27. In accordance with the sentencing bands that have just been
Q Q
identified above, for the quantity of drugs involved, the starting points on a
R
straight arithmetic calculation, according to my calculation, are 59.49 R
months for 29.15 grammes of ketamine and 62.25 months for 12.50
S S
grammes of cocaine.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
28. In sentencing different quantities of different drugs, the Court
C may adopt “individual approach” or “combined approach”, in order to C
“sentence fairly, realistically and in a common sense manner”: HKSAR v
D D
Yip Wai Yin & Another, CACC 80/2003 (unreported, 7 July 2004). To
E achieve a reasonable and realistic sentence, I adopted the combined E
approach and cross-check it by 3 tests: “absurdity test”, “conversion test”
F F
and “ratio test” (see HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013
G (unreported, 8 April 2014) and HKSAR v Islam S M Majharul [2020] 3 G
HKLRD 146).
H H
I 29. Mr Ah-Weng said he shall adopt the figures worked out by the I
Prosecution under the three cross-checking tests which more or less
J J
coincide with those under my calculations. In the instant case, the more
K serious drug in terms of potency is cocaine and should be used as the base K
drug in the calculation.
L L
M The “Absurdity Test” M
N N
30. For the “absurdity test”, the total quantity of dangerous drugs
O involved was 41.65 grammes (ie 29.15 grammes of ketamine plus 12.5 O
grammes of cocaine).
P P
Q 31. As such, from a pure quantitative approach, assuming all the Q
drugs were cocaine, the appropriate starting point for 41.65 grammes of
R R
cocaine would be 88.485 months or around 7 years and 4 months of
S imprisonment. S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
The “Conversion Test”
C C
32. The starting point for trafficking in 29.15 grammes of
D D
ketamine would be 59.49 months which is roughly equal to the starting
E point for trafficking in 9.86 grammes of cocaine. E
F F
33. Converting the ketamine involved in the present case to
G cocaine, the total quantity of drugs would be equivalent to 22.36 grammes G
of cocaine (ie 12.5 grammes + 9.86 grammes).
H H
I 34. For 22.36 grammes of Cocaine, the appropriate starting point I
would be 71.124 months or around 5 years and 11 months of imprisonment.
J J
K The “Ratio Test” K
L L
35. As aforesaid, the total quantity of dangerous drugs involved
M was 41.65 grammes (ie 29.15 grammes of ketamine plus 12.5 grammes of M
cocaine).
N N
O 36. The result of the “ratio test” are as follows: O
P P
Dangerous Assuming all Ratio Sentence
Drug same (41.65g)
Q Q
Ketamine 67 months 29.15/41.65 = 0.7 0.7 x 67 = 47 months
R Cocaine 88 months 12.5/41.65 = 0.3 0.3 x 88 = 26 months R
TOTAL: 100% 73 months
S S
T T
37. The starting points under the 3 cross-check tests are:
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C (a) the “absurdity test” – 88 months C
(b) the “conversion test” – 71 months
D D
(c) the “ratio test” – 73 months
E E
38. Based on the above and having applied the three cross-check
F F
tests, I am of the view that a notional starting point of 72 months (6 years)
G for trafficking in the cocaine and ketamine concerned would be just and G
appropriate.
H H
I 39. The fourth step requires me to consider whether there are, at I
present, any aggravating factors which might require me to enhance the
J J
starting point. There were 2 kinds of drugs being trafficked in the present
K case. The Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Yim Hung Lui Ricky (嚴 K
紅雷 ), CACC 266/2011 said at paragraph 11 of the judgment that “the
L L
presence of more than one type of drug in a drug trafficking offence is an
M M
aggravating factor because in such a situation the trafficker is able to cater
N to a far wider market than the trafficker in only one kind of drug.” (also see N
Islam S M Majharul)
O O
P 40. Therefore, I enhance the notional starting point by 3 months P
for there being two kinds of dangerous drugs for a wider market. The
Q Q
overall starting point is 75 months.
R R
41. Having fully considered the mitigation put forward by Mr Ah-
S S
Weng, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the
T Defendant’s sentence is his timely plea. After deducting the customary T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
one-third discount to plea, the sentence for Charge 1 is reduced to 50
C months’ imprisonment. C
D D
Charge 2 “Driving in excess of speed limit”, Charge 3 “Driving while
E disqualified” and Charge 4 “Using a motor vehicle without third party E
insurance”
F F
G 42. As regards Charge 2, the maximum sentence is a fine at level G
2.
H H
I 43. As regards Charge 3 and 4, the maximum sentences for both I
charges are at level 3 and imprisonment up to 12 months and
J J
disqualification for a period of not less than 12 months.
K K
44. I was urged to take into account that the Defendant acted alone
L L
and did not have any passengers. Despite the speeding, there was no
M evidence of other irresponsible driving behaviour. It was submitted that he M
was not evading police pursuit, nor engaged in any racing. Counsel stressed
N N
that no accidents occurred and no one was injured. There was no
O submission on disqualification. O
P P
45. Turning to the facts of this case, the Defendant was caught
Q speeding by the Police’s speed detection gun driving UD6697 at 125 km/h, Q
which exceeded the 80 km/h speed limit of the material section of the road,
R R
45 km/h over the speed limit. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that he had
S been disqualified from driving from 1 August 2023 to 31 October 2023. I S
must stress that driving while disqualified and hence, without third party
T T
insurance, is a very serious offence as other innocent road users who are
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
injured in any traffic accident may be left without any compensation. The
C Defendant’s behaviour is totally irresponsible, and it was a deliberate C
disregard of the law. It is only fortunate that no injuries were caused to the
D D
other road users.
E E
46. I have taken into account all the matters urged upon me in
F F
mitigation. The sentences are as follows:
G G
(1) for Charge 2, I impose a fine of $2,000;
H H
I (2) for Charge 3, I adopt a starting point of 6 months’ I
imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence
J J
him to 4 month’s imprisonment and disqualify him from
K driving any class of vehicle for a period of 1 year; and K
L L
(3) for Charge 4, I also adopt a starting point of 6 months’
M imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence M
him to 4 month’s imprisonment and disqualify him from
N N
driving any class of vehicle for a period of 1 year.
O O
P
Charge 5 “Failing to provide a specimen of blood or urine” P
Q Q
47. The maximum sentence for this particular charge is up to a fine
R
at level 4 and imprisonment up to 3 years and disqualification for a period R
of not less than 5 years.
S S
T 48. Fung J in HKSAR v Lai King Lun (賴經綸), HCMA 889/2007 T
emphasized the seriousness of this offence and said at paragraph 17 that the
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
failure to provide a specimen of breath (or blood in the present case) not
C only hampers police investigation of the accident and obstructs the sanction C
of the provisions, it also affects the civil claims. Therefore, deterrent
D D
sentence should be imposed.
E E
49. After considering all the factors, I adopt a starting point of 6
F F
months' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence him to 4
G months’ imprisonment and disqualify him from driving any class of vehicle G
for a period of 5 years.
H H
I SENTENCES IMPOSED I
J J
50. Accordingly, I sentence the Defendant as follows: Charge 1,
K 50 months’ imprisonment; Charge 2, fined $2,000; Charge 3, 4 months’ K
imprisonment, together with a disqualification order from driving all
L L
classes of vehicles for a period of 1 year; Charge 4, 4 months’ imprisonment,
M together with a disqualification order from driving all classes of vehicles M
for a period of 1 year; and Charge 5, 4 months’ imprisonment, together with
N N
a disqualification order from driving all classes of vehicles for a period of
O 5 years. For Charge 5, I also make an order under section 72A(1A) of RTO O
that the defendant must at his own expense complete a driving improvement
P P
course within the last 3 months of the period of disqualification.
Q Q
51. The periods of disqualification for Charges 4 and 5 will run
R R
concurrently. According to section 44(3) of the same Ordinance, the period
S of disqualification for Charge 3 shall be in addition to any other period of S
disqualification ordered under any provision of this same Ordinance.
T T
Therefore, the 1-year period for Charge 3 will then be in addition to the 5-
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
year period of disqualification. That is a total disqualification of 6 years’
C disqualification and will run from today. C
D D
TOTALITY
E E
52. Then there is a consideration of totality, for which the court is
F F
required to step back and look at the overall sentence in the round. The
G prison terms of Charge 3 to 5 would be served concurrently as it is part and G
parcel of a one continuing event. Charge 1, the trafficking case, is an
H H
offence of a totally different nature to the rest of the offences. The sentence
I should, in principle, run consecutively. However, applying the totality I
principle, I consider that an overall term of 52 months should sufficiently
J J
reflect the criminality involved in this case and it is appropriate and is not
K out of proportion to the Defendant’s overall criminality. K
L L
53. To achieve that result, I first order that the sentences on
M Charges 3 to 5 to be served concurrently, of which 2 months is to be served M
consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1 and the balance concurrently.
N N
O 54. The total sentence to be served by the Defendant is 52 months’ O
(4 years and 4 months) imprisonment.
P P
Q Q
R R
( Ivy Chui )
S Deputy District Judge S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 854/2024
C [2025] HKDC 681 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 854 OF 2024
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LIU CHUN LOK I
---------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Ivy Chui K
Date: 15 April 2025
L L
Present: Mr Au-Yeung Shun Hei, Dimitri, Senior Public Prosecutor,
M for HKSAR M
Mr Ah-Weng Jonathan Winston, instructed by K B Chau &
N N
Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
O Offence: [1] Trafficking in dangerous drugs（販運危險藥物） O
P
[2] Driving in excess of speed limit（超速駕駛） P
[3] Driving while disqualified（於取消駕駛資格期間駕駛）
Q Q
[4] Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance（沒
R 有第三者保險而使用汽車） R
S [5] Failing to provide a specimen of blood or urine（沒有提 S
供血液樣本或尿液樣本）
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
----------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
----------------------------------------
D D
E INTRODUCTION E
F F
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 1, a charge of
G trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the G
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap 134); Charge 2, a charge of driving in
H H
excess of speed limit, contrary to section 41(1)(a) of the Road Traffic
I Ordinance (Cap 374) (“RTO”); Charge 3, a charge of driving while I
disqualified, contrary to section 44(1)(b) of RTO; Charge 4, a charge of
J J
using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, contrary to section 4(1)
K and (2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance K
(Cap 272); and Charge 5, a charge of failing to provide a specimen of blood
L L
or urine, contrary to sections 39P(1) and 39S of RTO. That is a total of 5
M charges. M
N N
2. I found the Defendant guilty as charged after he admitted the
O Summary of Facts. O
P P
THE FACTS
Q Q
3. Facts admitted by the Defendant disclosed that at about 10:47
R R
am on 20 September 2023, PC28605 (PW1) used a laser speed detection
S gun near Chainage 7.9N, Tsing Kwai Highway, Tsing Yi and detected that S
a private car bearing registration number UD6697 (the “Car”) driven by the
T T
Defendant was travelling at a speed of 125 km/h, which exceeded the 80
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
km/h speed limit of the material section of the road (Charge 2). As a result,
C PC24054 (PW2) intercepted the Car at Chainage 8.5N. C
D D
4. When being requested, the Defendant failed to provide any
E valid driving licence. Upon further enquiry, it was revealed that the E
Defendant had been disqualified from driving from 1 August 2023 to 31
F F
October 2023 (Charge 3) and he used the Car on a road when there was not
G in force in relation to the user thereof by him such a policy of insurance or G
such a security in respect of third party risks as complied with the
H H
requirements of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks)
I Ordinance (Cap 272) (Charge 4). I
J J
5. At about 11:15 am, PW2 arrested the Defendant for “Driving
K in excess of speed limit”, “Driving while disqualified” and “Using a vehicle K
without third party risk insurance”. Under caution, the Defendant said he
L L
was speeding as he was rushing home.
M M
6. At about 11:30 am, PW2 took the Defendant back to the Car.
N N
When PW2 opened the door of the driver’s seat, he noticed that on the floor
O there was a transparent re-sealable bag containing white substance. O
Suspecting that the Defendant was in possession of dangerous drugs, PW2
P P
searched the area under the driver’s seat and the following items were found:
Q Q
(a) 19 plastic bags containing a total of 11.1 grammes of a
R R
solid containing 9.65 grammes of ketamine;
S S
(b) 1 plastic bag (with the Chinese characters “50 needles”
T T
written on it) containing 36 plastic bags containing a
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
total of 22.5 grammes of a solid containing 19.5
C grammes of ketamine; C
D D
(c) 1 plastic bag containing 35 plastic bags containing a
E total of 9.46 grammes of a solid containing 7.74 E
grammes of cocaine;
F F
G (d) 1 plastic bag (with the number “40” written on it) G
containing 13 plastic bags containing a total of 3.41
H H
grammes of a solid containing 3.08 grammes of cocaine.
I I
7. Upon further search, 5 plastic bags containing a total of 1.33
J J
grammes of a solid containing 1.21 grammes of cocaine were found inside
K a paper box under the front passenger seat. K
L L
8. At about 12:12 pm on the same day, PW2 arrested the
M Defendant for “Trafficking in dangerous drugs”. Under caution, the M
Defendant claimed that the dangerous drugs were his.
N N
O 9. Between 12:13 pm and 12:16 pm, PC27466 (PW3) conducted O
a search of the Defendant’s shoulder bag and found:
P P
Q (a) 2 plastic bags containing a total of 0.5 grammes of a Q
solid containing 0.47 grammes of cocaine;
R R
S (b) RMB 400 and HK$6,840. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
10. At about 12:17 pm on the same day, PW2 arrested the
C Defendant for “Trafficking in dangerous drugs”. Under caution, the C
Defendant claimed that the dangerous drugs were his (Charge 1).
D D
E 11. Government Chemist (PW4) subsequently confirmed the E
above narcotic contents, and there was in total 29.15 grammes of ketamine
F F
and 12.50 grammes of cocaine.
G G
12. The estimated street value of all the drugs was HK$64,126.
H H
I 13. The Defendant was later escorted to Tsing Yi Police Station. I
At about 2:12 pm on the same day, PW2 demanded the Defendant to
J J
provide blood samples for a laboratory test, pursuant to Section 39P of the
K Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap 374). The Defendant refused to co-operate K
and thus at about 2:17 pm, PW2 arrested the Defendant for “Failing to
L L
provide a specimen of blood” (Charge 5).
M M
14. Between 11:50 pm on 20 September 2023 and 12:24 am on 21
N N
September 2023 and from 12:32 am to 12:37 am on the same day,
O DPC13436 (PW5) and DSGT52476 (PW6) conducted two video-recorded O
interviews with the Defendant. Under caution, he stated, inter alia, the
P P
following:
Q Q
(a) He was asked by an unknown male to pick up the drugs
R R
at San Po Kong and to pass them to someone in Tuen
S Mun; S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
(b) The Car was lent to the Defendant by the said unknown
C male at Yau Ma Tei; C
D D
(c) The Defendant knew that he was carrying ketamine and
E cocaine; E
F F
(d) The Defendant was given to understand that “50 needles”
G refers to “ketamine”; G
H H
(e) He admitted having put the dangerous drugs underneath
I the seat of the Car; I
J J
(f) The Defendant trafficked in dangerous drugs as he had
K borrowed a lot of money due to gambling; K
L L
(g) He was aware that he had been disqualified from driving.
M M
BACKGROUND AND CRIMINAL RECORD
N N
O 15. The Defendant is now 32 years old. He is an only child and O
received education up to Form 5 level. He is single and prior to his arrest
P P
he was living with his parents in a village house. I was told that his parents
Q were concerned with his present case. Q
R R
16. The Defendant was working as a logistics driver, earning
S about $15,000 per month at the time of the arrest. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
17. The Defendant has a clear record. He however has a poor
C traffic record. Since July 2020, he has 5 convictions and 30 fixed penalties C
including speeding, failing to comply with traffic signals, failing to carry
D D
driving licence when driving, failing to comply with road markings,
E overloading, and driving goods vehicle without being securely fastened E
with seat belt.
F F
G MITIGATION G
H H
18. Mr Ah-Weng, Counsel for the Defendant, provided me with
I his written submission for mitigation. It was submitted that the Defendant I
has pleaded guilty to all five charges at the first available opportunity and
J J
was truly remorseful. He is a young man who failed to appreciate
K previously the consequences of his own actions. He expresses regret for K
his fault in the present offences which had a great impact on his family.
L L
Despite his imminent period of substantial imprisonment, he still has his
M whole life ahead to turn things around. M
N N
19. A letter of mitigation by the defendant and his mother were
O produced to this court. In the letter, the Defendant explained that he O
resorted to trafficking in dangerous drugs for others in an effort to repay the
P P
gambling debts. He was very remorseful and promised to behave in the
Q future. Both his retired parents returned to work to repay his debts, and Q
they still visited him regularly regardless of conditions. He asked for early
R R
release so that he could take up the responsibilities to look after his parents
S and to allow them to retire properly. S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
20. The Defendant’s mother spoke to his previous good character
C and indicated that the present offences were committed entirely out of C
character. She asked for leniency from this Court.
D D
E SENTENCING CONSIDERATONS E
F F
Charge 1 “Trafficking in dangerous drugs”
G G
21. Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a serious and reprehensible
H H
offence. The law relating to the sentencing of drug trafficking offenders
I was refined and clarified by the Court of Appeal in a case of HKSAR v I
Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. In that judgment, Macrae VP in
J J
giving the judgment of the court set out a six-step approach to the
K sentencing of offenders convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug. K
L L
22. With these general principles in mind, I now turn to the six
M steps laid down in that judgment. M
N N
23. There are two types of drugs involved in the trafficking charge,
O namely 29.15 grammes of ketamine and 12.50 grammes of cocaine. O
P P
Cocaine
Q Q
24. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (黃瑞芳),
R R
CACC 106/2022 (unreported, 5 March 2025) has modified the guidelines
S S
for trafficking in heroin and cocaine for all quantities. For the quantity of
T 12.50 grammes of cocaine, the relevant guideline band is between 10 T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
grammes and 50 grammes for which the sentence is between 5 and 8 years’
C imprisonment. C
D D
Ketamine
E E
25. For ketamine, the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in
F F
ketamine are found in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng (許守城 )
G [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. For the quantity of 29.15 grammes of ketamine, the G
relevant guideline band is between 10 grammes and 50 grammes for which
H H
the sentence is between 4 and 6 years’ imprisonment.
I I
26. It was submitted that the Defendant in his video-recorded
J J
interview said under caution, inter alia, that he was only asked by unknown
K male to pick up the ketamine and cocaine at San Po Kong and to pass to K
someone in Tuen Mun. The Defendant further explained in the interview
L L
that he trafficked the drugs because he had borrowed a lot of money.
M Counsel urged the court to consider that there was no evidence to show that M
the Defendant was dealing in dangerous drugs to others (ie actual/direct
N N
trafficking). Having regard to the circumstances of this case, I am prepared
O O
to accept that the Defendant acted as a courier.
P P
27. In accordance with the sentencing bands that have just been
Q Q
identified above, for the quantity of drugs involved, the starting points on a
R
straight arithmetic calculation, according to my calculation, are 59.49 R
months for 29.15 grammes of ketamine and 62.25 months for 12.50
S S
grammes of cocaine.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
28. In sentencing different quantities of different drugs, the Court
C may adopt “individual approach” or “combined approach”, in order to C
“sentence fairly, realistically and in a common sense manner”: HKSAR v
D D
Yip Wai Yin & Another, CACC 80/2003 (unreported, 7 July 2004). To
E achieve a reasonable and realistic sentence, I adopted the combined E
approach and cross-check it by 3 tests: “absurdity test”, “conversion test”
F F
and “ratio test” (see HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013
G (unreported, 8 April 2014) and HKSAR v Islam S M Majharul [2020] 3 G
HKLRD 146).
H H
I 29. Mr Ah-Weng said he shall adopt the figures worked out by the I
Prosecution under the three cross-checking tests which more or less
J J
coincide with those under my calculations. In the instant case, the more
K serious drug in terms of potency is cocaine and should be used as the base K
drug in the calculation.
L L
M The “Absurdity Test” M
N N
30. For the “absurdity test”, the total quantity of dangerous drugs
O involved was 41.65 grammes (ie 29.15 grammes of ketamine plus 12.5 O
grammes of cocaine).
P P
Q 31. As such, from a pure quantitative approach, assuming all the Q
drugs were cocaine, the appropriate starting point for 41.65 grammes of
R R
cocaine would be 88.485 months or around 7 years and 4 months of
S imprisonment. S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
The “Conversion Test”
C C
32. The starting point for trafficking in 29.15 grammes of
D D
ketamine would be 59.49 months which is roughly equal to the starting
E point for trafficking in 9.86 grammes of cocaine. E
F F
33. Converting the ketamine involved in the present case to
G cocaine, the total quantity of drugs would be equivalent to 22.36 grammes G
of cocaine (ie 12.5 grammes + 9.86 grammes).
H H
I 34. For 22.36 grammes of Cocaine, the appropriate starting point I
would be 71.124 months or around 5 years and 11 months of imprisonment.
J J
K The “Ratio Test” K
L L
35. As aforesaid, the total quantity of dangerous drugs involved
M was 41.65 grammes (ie 29.15 grammes of ketamine plus 12.5 grammes of M
cocaine).
N N
O 36. The result of the “ratio test” are as follows: O
P P
Dangerous Assuming all Ratio Sentence
Drug same (41.65g)
Q Q
Ketamine 67 months 29.15/41.65 = 0.7 0.7 x 67 = 47 months
R Cocaine 88 months 12.5/41.65 = 0.3 0.3 x 88 = 26 months R
TOTAL: 100% 73 months
S S
T T
37. The starting points under the 3 cross-check tests are:
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C (a) the “absurdity test” – 88 months C
(b) the “conversion test” – 71 months
D D
(c) the “ratio test” – 73 months
E E
38. Based on the above and having applied the three cross-check
F F
tests, I am of the view that a notional starting point of 72 months (6 years)
G for trafficking in the cocaine and ketamine concerned would be just and G
appropriate.
H H
I 39. The fourth step requires me to consider whether there are, at I
present, any aggravating factors which might require me to enhance the
J J
starting point. There were 2 kinds of drugs being trafficked in the present
K case. The Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Yim Hung Lui Ricky (嚴 K
紅雷 ), CACC 266/2011 said at paragraph 11 of the judgment that “the
L L
presence of more than one type of drug in a drug trafficking offence is an
M M
aggravating factor because in such a situation the trafficker is able to cater
N to a far wider market than the trafficker in only one kind of drug.” (also see N
Islam S M Majharul)
O O
P 40. Therefore, I enhance the notional starting point by 3 months P
for there being two kinds of dangerous drugs for a wider market. The
Q Q
overall starting point is 75 months.
R R
41. Having fully considered the mitigation put forward by Mr Ah-
S S
Weng, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the
T Defendant’s sentence is his timely plea. After deducting the customary T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
one-third discount to plea, the sentence for Charge 1 is reduced to 50
C months’ imprisonment. C
D D
Charge 2 “Driving in excess of speed limit”, Charge 3 “Driving while
E disqualified” and Charge 4 “Using a motor vehicle without third party E
insurance”
F F
G 42. As regards Charge 2, the maximum sentence is a fine at level G
2.
H H
I 43. As regards Charge 3 and 4, the maximum sentences for both I
charges are at level 3 and imprisonment up to 12 months and
J J
disqualification for a period of not less than 12 months.
K K
44. I was urged to take into account that the Defendant acted alone
L L
and did not have any passengers. Despite the speeding, there was no
M evidence of other irresponsible driving behaviour. It was submitted that he M
was not evading police pursuit, nor engaged in any racing. Counsel stressed
N N
that no accidents occurred and no one was injured. There was no
O submission on disqualification. O
P P
45. Turning to the facts of this case, the Defendant was caught
Q speeding by the Police’s speed detection gun driving UD6697 at 125 km/h, Q
which exceeded the 80 km/h speed limit of the material section of the road,
R R
45 km/h over the speed limit. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that he had
S been disqualified from driving from 1 August 2023 to 31 October 2023. I S
must stress that driving while disqualified and hence, without third party
T T
insurance, is a very serious offence as other innocent road users who are
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
injured in any traffic accident may be left without any compensation. The
C Defendant’s behaviour is totally irresponsible, and it was a deliberate C
disregard of the law. It is only fortunate that no injuries were caused to the
D D
other road users.
E E
46. I have taken into account all the matters urged upon me in
F F
mitigation. The sentences are as follows:
G G
(1) for Charge 2, I impose a fine of $2,000;
H H
I (2) for Charge 3, I adopt a starting point of 6 months’ I
imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence
J J
him to 4 month’s imprisonment and disqualify him from
K driving any class of vehicle for a period of 1 year; and K
L L
(3) for Charge 4, I also adopt a starting point of 6 months’
M imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence M
him to 4 month’s imprisonment and disqualify him from
N N
driving any class of vehicle for a period of 1 year.
O O
P
Charge 5 “Failing to provide a specimen of blood or urine” P
Q Q
47. The maximum sentence for this particular charge is up to a fine
R
at level 4 and imprisonment up to 3 years and disqualification for a period R
of not less than 5 years.
S S
T 48. Fung J in HKSAR v Lai King Lun (賴經綸), HCMA 889/2007 T
emphasized the seriousness of this offence and said at paragraph 17 that the
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
failure to provide a specimen of breath (or blood in the present case) not
C only hampers police investigation of the accident and obstructs the sanction C
of the provisions, it also affects the civil claims. Therefore, deterrent
D D
sentence should be imposed.
E E
49. After considering all the factors, I adopt a starting point of 6
F F
months' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence him to 4
G months’ imprisonment and disqualify him from driving any class of vehicle G
for a period of 5 years.
H H
I SENTENCES IMPOSED I
J J
50. Accordingly, I sentence the Defendant as follows: Charge 1,
K 50 months’ imprisonment; Charge 2, fined $2,000; Charge 3, 4 months’ K
imprisonment, together with a disqualification order from driving all
L L
classes of vehicles for a period of 1 year; Charge 4, 4 months’ imprisonment,
M together with a disqualification order from driving all classes of vehicles M
for a period of 1 year; and Charge 5, 4 months’ imprisonment, together with
N N
a disqualification order from driving all classes of vehicles for a period of
O 5 years. For Charge 5, I also make an order under section 72A(1A) of RTO O
that the defendant must at his own expense complete a driving improvement
P P
course within the last 3 months of the period of disqualification.
Q Q
51. The periods of disqualification for Charges 4 and 5 will run
R R
concurrently. According to section 44(3) of the same Ordinance, the period
S of disqualification for Charge 3 shall be in addition to any other period of S
disqualification ordered under any provision of this same Ordinance.
T T
Therefore, the 1-year period for Charge 3 will then be in addition to the 5-
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
year period of disqualification. That is a total disqualification of 6 years’
C disqualification and will run from today. C
D D
TOTALITY
E E
52. Then there is a consideration of totality, for which the court is
F F
required to step back and look at the overall sentence in the round. The
G prison terms of Charge 3 to 5 would be served concurrently as it is part and G
parcel of a one continuing event. Charge 1, the trafficking case, is an
H H
offence of a totally different nature to the rest of the offences. The sentence
I should, in principle, run consecutively. However, applying the totality I
principle, I consider that an overall term of 52 months should sufficiently
J J
reflect the criminality involved in this case and it is appropriate and is not
K out of proportion to the Defendant’s overall criminality. K
L L
53. To achieve that result, I first order that the sentences on
M Charges 3 to 5 to be served concurrently, of which 2 months is to be served M
consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1 and the balance concurrently.
N N
O 54. The total sentence to be served by the Defendant is 52 months’ O
(4 years and 4 months) imprisonment.
P P
Q Q
R R
( Ivy Chui )
S Deputy District Judge S
T T
U U
V V