A HCCC 429/2024 A
[2025] HKCFI 2986
B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 429 OF 2024
D ----------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F F
Mio Chiu-hing (繆招興)
G ----------------- G
Before: Hon Anna Lai J
H H
Date: 9 May 2025 at 3.03 pm
Present: Miss Tsui Sin-chi Jennifer, SPP(Ag) of the Department
I of Justice, for HKSAR I
Mr Peter Pannu, instructed by Cheung, Yeung & Lee
Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the accused
J Offence: Trafficking in a dangerous drugs (販運危險藥物) J
K --------------------------------- K
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
L L
---------------------------------
M COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking M
in a dangerous drug before a Magistrate on 12 December last
N year. It is alleged that on the 8th day of November 2022, N
at Room 8092 of the Sunny Day Hotel in Mong Kok, he
unlawfully trafficked in 204.1 grammes of ketamine narcotic.
O O
According to the Summary of Facts to which he admitted at
the time of his plea of guilty, on 8 November 2022 the
P police raided Room 8092 of the Sunny Day Hotel, and the P
defendant was the only person present in the room at the
Q time. Q
Upon search, the police found a total of 387 small
R resealable transparent plastic bags of ketamine as R
particularised in the charge. Also a number of equipment
was found in the room including multiple unused transparent
S S
resealable plastic bags; electronic scales, one in white
colour, another one in black colour; plastic bowls; black
T ladle; one pair of pliers and three mobile phones. The key T
cards and the rental receipt of the hotel room were seized
from the defendant.
U U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 1 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A Upon his arrest for the offence of trafficking in a A
dangerous drug, the defendant stated under caution that he
was only responsible for watching over the dangerous drugs
B and sealing them in bags. B
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, he stated that:
C C
- On 6 November 2022 he rented the hotel room during which
D he received a phone call offering him a job opportunity. D
Later, he left the room with a friend and met an unknown
male who passed him a black plastic bag. He and his
E friend returned to the hotel room with the plastic bag, E
and then he realised the bag contained ketamine.
F F
- Following the realisation that the bag contained
ketamine, he received further instructions from another
G person regarding the weighing and packing of the G
ketamine. As a result, he and his friend went to Temple
Street to buy a white electronic scale for weighing the
H drug. He then returned to the hotel to carry out the H
weighing and packing process.
I I
- However, he was told that the white scale used for the
weighing was inaccurate. So, as instructed, he and his
J friend again went to Temple Street. This time they J
bought another electronic scale in black colour for
weighing and packing the drug. He also bought some
K transparent resealable plastic bags for packing the drug, K
and then he returned to the hotel room alone.
L L
- On 7 November, that is the day before he was arrested, he
started to weigh and pack the drug into transparent
M resealable plastic bags in the hotel room under the M
supervision and the instruction of another person.
Subsequently he was told that the packed drug would be
N collected in the afternoon of 8 November. N
O - The boss told him that the street value of the drug was O
HK$70,000, and he was told to pack the drug for a
monetary reward of $500.
P P
- He admitted that all the equipment seized in the hotel
room was used to weigh and pack the drug.
Q Q
Subsequent enquiries revealed that the hotel room was
R registered in his name. Photographs of the dangerous drug R
and the white electronic scale were retrieved from one of
his mobile phones, his iPhone. His fingerprints were found
S on the white electronic scale and his DNA was also lifted on S
one of the plastic bags.
T T
The street value of the ketamine seized at the time of the
arrest was HK$144,841.
U U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 2 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A The defendant was 17 years of age at the time of the A
offence, and now he is 20 years old. He has studied up to
Form 4. I was told that he was a part-time salesperson at
B the Jumpin Gym USA from early 2021 to early 2022. B
He has a previous conviction for the offence of theft for
C C
which, on 20 April 2023, he was sentenced to rehabilitation
centre for 9 months. About three weeks ago, he was also
D sentenced by the District Court to the detention centre for D
the offence of conspiracy to defraud.
E I understand from the information before me that on 26 July E
2022, he was arrested for a case of theft and was released
on police bail. On 8 November 2022, that is the date of the
F F
present offence, he was arrested in the hotel room for the
drug trafficking case (the present case) as well as the
G District Court case which was the conspiracy to defraud G
case.
H On 31 January 2023 he was charged with the offence of theft. H
On 20 April 2023, in respect of the theft offence he was
I
sentenced to the rehabilitation centre for 9 months. He was I
discharged from the centre on 13 November 2023 and was
required to undergo a 1-year supervision.
J J
On 15 April this year, upon his plea of guilty to the
offence of conspiracy to defraud, he was sentenced in the
K District Court to detention in the detention centre. So now K
he is still serving the detention centre order that was
L imposed on him about three weeks ago. L
And it is obvious from the chronology that when the present
M offence was committed, he was being released on police bail M
for the offence of theft.
N In mitigation, counsel Mr Pannu drew to my attention the N
tragic background about his childhood and his family
O background. I was told that he was 17 years old at the time O
of the offence. Indeed, it should be 17 years and
11 months. He was almost 18 at the time.
P P
I was told that he was an orphan. His mother was a drug
addict. When he was born, his father left her and he was
Q Q
left at Po Leung Kuk until his mother found a partner, and
the stepfather passed away in 2010 when he was 6 years old.
R He was then taken care of by the stepfather’s mum whom he R
called “Mama” or grandmother. Then he was sent to a foster
home for two to three years, and he was under the care and
S the support of his foster mother. He studied up to Form 4 S
level but he repeated many times at Form 4.
T T
Counsel informed me that he had a very limited role in the
present case. He was only involved in the drug for two
U days, and he was purely assisting a friend to watch over the U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 3 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A drug and to weigh and package it when he was asked to do so A
for a small payment of $500. Counsel drew to my attention
that he was not the mastermind, and he was not involved in
B the procurement or the sale of the drug. B
Counsel said the drug discovery was incidental because at
C C
the time he was also involved in the fraud case, the
District Court case, and the hotel room was indeed used for
D the fraud purpose. Counsel said at the material time he was D
being recruited by others to get involved in a technology
phishing conspiracy.
E E
Counsel said that due to his mental disorder of ADHD, he was
a vulnerable person susceptible to being used by other
F F
people, and it was the same group of people who lured him
into drug trafficking.
G G
Counsel said that he had undergone rehabilitation at the
rehabilitation centre, and was now doing well in the
H detention centre. He urged this court, as an exceptional H
means, to sentence him to a detention centre order so that
I
he can continue with the rehabilitation in this case. I
Counsel also relied on the Court of Appeal case of SJ v
Lau Shing Kit [2012] 5 HKLRD 297 to say that it would be
J appropriate for this Court to sentence him to the detention J
centre.
K In the case of Lau Shing Kit which was decided by the Court K
of Appeal in September 2012, the respondent there pleaded
L guilty to the charge of trafficking in 183.99 grammes of L
ketamine and Deputy High Court Judge Longley sentenced him
to undergo a period of detention in a training centre. The
M Secretary for Justice applied for a review of that sentence. M
That particular respondent was also 17 years of age at the
N time of the offence, and that offence was also committed N
while he was on bail for a theft case. In that particular
O case, he was sentenced to the detention centre for the theft O
offence. Apparently the Judge, when sentenced him to the
training centre, took into account the fact that he had
P already concluded his sentence in the detention centre. P
I consider that the background of that case is
Q Q
distinguishable from the present case for the following
reasons. First of all, the quantity of ketamine involved in
R that case was less than the present case. Secondly, in that R
case the respondent was sentenced by the Deputy High Court
Judge to detention in a training centre which might last for
S up to 3 years’ detention. It was the assumption of the S
Deputy Judge at the time that he would be detained in the
detention centre for a 3-year period.
T T
In the present case, the defendant was sentenced by the
U District Court to the detention centre which, according to U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 4 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A the Detention Centres Ordinance (Cap. 239), the period of A
detention is only for a period of between 1 and 6 months,
after which he would need to undergo a 1-year supervision
B which is much shorter than the order of a training centre. B
In any event, I am aware of the Court of Appeal’s
C C
observation at paragraph 17 of that judgment. It was the
view of the Court of Appeal that the sentencing judge was
D wrong, especially having regard to the serious fact that the D
offence was committed whilst on bail, and there was nothing
attaching to the circumstances of the commission of the
E offence that was exceptional. The Court also said that it E
was not appropriate for the judge to assume that the
respondent would be kept in the training centre for as long
F F
as 3 years.
G At paragraph 18 of that judgment, the Court said: G
“Whilst we acknowledge a certain discomfort at the
H notion of sending an offender to prison immediately H
upon the termination of a period in a detention centre,
I
that discomfort must yield to the nature and gravity of I
the fresh offence. If the fresh offence is not of such
a serious nature as to demand a substantial term of
J imprisonment, an imaginative sentencing approach of the J
type upon which the judge embarked is acceptable. If
on the other hand the fresh offence is, by reason of
K its facts or by reason of sentencing policy attaching K
to its category, such as to require a lengthy term of
L imprisonment, then a term of imprisonment should be L
imposed.”
M In that case, the Court of Appeal observed that the sentence M
of imprisonment in the region of 4½ years after plea ought
to have been imposed.
N N
I am also aware of the remarks made by the Court at
O paragraph 22: O
“… Part of the messy history hitherto was created by
P the fact that the respondent was sentenced for the P
theft offence before he was sentenced for the drugs
offence. That ought not to have happened. Had the
Q Q
magistrate who dealt with the theft offences been
informed that the respondent was awaiting trial for the
R much more serious offence of drug trafficking, he would R
no doubt have adjourned sentence for the theft
offences.”
S S
I do echo that remark of the Court of Appeal.
T T
With hindsight, the defendant in this case should have been
sentenced for the drug offence well before he was sentenced
U in the District Court for the conspiracy to defraud. U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 5 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Be that as it may, it was the case that three weeks ago he
was sentenced to the detention centre, and now he is facing
B the sentence for the drug offence in the High Court. B
I have taken into account all the matters urged upon me by
C C
defence counsel who had tried his very best to urge this
court to impose a detention centre order, or at least to
D call for a Young Offender Assessment Panel’s report, so that D
I can consider any sentence other than an immediate
custodial sentence.
E E
A total of five mitigation letters were also submitted in
mitigation, three of which had already been used in
F F
mitigation during his sentence for the conspiracy to defraud
case in the District Court. Those letters were prepared,
G first of all, by his adoptive parents, secondly, by a former G
class teacher, and by a family friend, by a former classmate
and also by a friend. All of them urged this Court to have
H mercy on him in view of his poor childhood and family H
background.
I I
However, I must point out that for offences as serious as
trafficking in dangerous drug, especially where a
J substantial quantity of drug is concerned, those family J
circumstances are of little weight when mitigation is
concerned.
K K
On the other hand, since counsel had also submitted the
L ‘Detention Centre/Training Centre Suitability Report’ L
(prepared for the District Court case) for my consideration,
I have taken into account the information stated in the
M Report when I considered whether it is worthwhile to adopt M
an unusual approach for not sentencing him to immediate
custodial sentence in this case.
N N
According to the Suitability Report, it was stated that the
O defendant became an orphan, and he was being adopted by his O
adoptive grandparents in 2008. He resided with the adoptive
family, and also, on and off, he stayed with his godmother
P at her place of abode. The living condition was considered P
to be fair.
Q Q
It was said that he worked as a shop attendant at the
Jumpin Gym in Causeway Bay between the period of September
R 2020 and February 2022. He did not take up any formal R
employment afterwards.
S Regarding his medical history, it was said that he claimed S
he was assessed to have attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia in his lower primaries, but he
T T
defaulted the follow-up treatment since 2017. Indeed, he
defaulted all the follow-up treatment on his special needs
U since September 2017. U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 6 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
According to the Report, he took part in drug peddling
activities twice in October 2022 and November 2022, and he
B tasted ketamine once in early November 2022. And he joined B
the Sun Yee On (Tsim Sha Tsui) triad society in February
2022.
C C
Later, on 26 July that year, he was arrested for the offence
D of theft and released on bail. During the bail period, he D
began to participate in drug peddling activities in October
2022 and tasted ketamine once in early November 2022.
E Eventually he was arrested for the trafficking in dangerous E
drug and the conspiracy to defraud offences respectively on
8 November that year.
F F
Later, on 20 April 2023 he was sentenced to the
G rehabilitation centre for the theft case in Eastern G
Magistracy. He was discharged from the rehabilitation
centre on 13 November 2023, subject to a 1-year statutory
H supervision. It was stated that his overall performance H
while remanding in custody was unsatisfactory for which he
I
was twice awarded disciplinary punishment for disobeying the I
staff’s instructions and possessing an unauthorised book in
July 2024. His statutory supervision under the
J Rehabilitation Centres Ordinance expired in November 2024. J
So, in conclusion, the reporting officer said that he was an
K orphan adopted by his adoptive grandparents at the age of 4, K
and after entering to secondary school he failed to catch up
L with the study. While he was studying Form 3 he joined L
triad society in February 2022. In July 2022 he was
arrested for the offence of theft. During the bail period,
M he even started participating in drug peddling activities M
and tasted ketamine.
N Then he was arrested for the drug offence and the fraud N
offence in November, and sentenced to the rehabilitation
O centre for the offence of theft in 2023. Upon the O
completion of his disciplinary training, he was discharged
from the rehabilitation centre in November 2023 and
P underwent a 1-year statutory supervision. While remanding P
in custody, he failed to comply with the centre rules.
Q Q
That is the content of the Report.
R It is well established in many cases that if the offence R
involves trafficking of dangerous drugs on a serious scale,
then a detention centre order is wrong in principle. I bear
S in mind the fact that this is a case involving a serious S
offence, and the gravity of the offence was revealed by the
quantity of the ketamine involved.
T T
I also bear in mind the fact that he cannot be said to be a
U person of extreme youth at the time when he committed the U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 7 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A present offence. He was almost 18 years old, and he was not A
even a person of clear record. At that time he was being
released on police bail for a case of theft, and at the same
B time when he committed the said drug trafficking offence, he B
was also committing a case of fraud together with other
people.
C C
Bearing in mind the sentencing principle, all the cases and
D the information before me, I consider that a detention D
centre order or a training centre order would be wrong in
principle in this case, and there is nothing to warrant any
E departure from the normal guidelines. E
In this particular case, in sentencing the defendant I do
F F
bear in mind the approach as stated by the Court of Appeal
in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290
G as clarified by the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 G
HKLRD 1186.
H This case involves a total of 204.1 grammes of ketamine H
narcotic. According to the guidelines, on a pure arithmetic
I
calculation the starting point for 204.1 grammes of ketamine I
narcotic should be 7 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
However, I should consider the notional starting point after
J having taken into account the role and culpability of the J
defendant.
K According to the Summary of Facts, the defendant was K
involved in the buying of one electronic scale and the
L packaging of the drug on 6 November, that is two days before L
he was arrested. When he was informed that the electronic
scale was not accurate, he went out to buy a second
M electronic scale and again he used that electronic scale to M
weigh and package the drug under the instruction of the
boss.
N N
So, in this particular case he was not only a storekeeper.
O He was also involved in the weighing and packaging of the O
drug for a period of two days before he was arrested. His
role was not merely one of a storekeeper. Of course, I do
P take into account the fact that he was not a courier on the P
information before me.
Q Q
Having considered his role and culpability in this case,
especially the fact that he was involved in the weighing and
R the packaging of the drug for two days in a hotel room which R
was rented in his name, I consider that the notional
starting point after trial should be 8 years’ imprisonment.
S S
The defendant committed the present offence when he was
being released on police bail for the theft case. As such I
T T
consider that the starting point should be enhanced by a
total of 3 months. That would raise the starting point to 8
U years and 3 months’ imprisonment. U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 8 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Other than his early plea of guilty, I do not see any valid
mitigation factor that would entitle him to any further
B discount. So, after the one-third discount for his plea of B
guilty, the ultimate sentence is 5½ years’ imprisonment.
C C
I do bear in mind about the unusual or tragic background of
his childhood, but I must emphasise that the same background
D or the same information should not be used again and again D
to pray for leniency in one case after another. In any
event, in this case I am prepared to give him a further
E discount of 3 months as a matter of mercy for the E
information before me, even though I realised that the same
information had already been used in the mitigation of other
F F
cases.
G So, the ultimate sentence that he is sentenced to is 5 years G
and 3 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I I/we certify that to the best of my/our ability
I
and skill, the foregoing is a true transcript
of the audio recording of the above proceedings
J J
K K
.........................................
Bruce Jericho Fuellas Torres
Date: 19 May 2025
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 9 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A HCCC 429/2024 A
[2025] HKCFI 2986
B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 429 OF 2024
D ----------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F F
Mio Chiu-hing (繆招興)
G ----------------- G
Before: Hon Anna Lai J
H H
Date: 9 May 2025 at 3.03 pm
Present: Miss Tsui Sin-chi Jennifer, SPP(Ag) of the Department
I of Justice, for HKSAR I
Mr Peter Pannu, instructed by Cheung, Yeung & Lee
Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the accused
J Offence: Trafficking in a dangerous drugs (販運危險藥物) J
K --------------------------------- K
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
L L
---------------------------------
M COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking M
in a dangerous drug before a Magistrate on 12 December last
N year. It is alleged that on the 8th day of November 2022, N
at Room 8092 of the Sunny Day Hotel in Mong Kok, he
unlawfully trafficked in 204.1 grammes of ketamine narcotic.
O O
According to the Summary of Facts to which he admitted at
the time of his plea of guilty, on 8 November 2022 the
P police raided Room 8092 of the Sunny Day Hotel, and the P
defendant was the only person present in the room at the
Q time. Q
Upon search, the police found a total of 387 small
R resealable transparent plastic bags of ketamine as R
particularised in the charge. Also a number of equipment
was found in the room including multiple unused transparent
S S
resealable plastic bags; electronic scales, one in white
colour, another one in black colour; plastic bowls; black
T ladle; one pair of pliers and three mobile phones. The key T
cards and the rental receipt of the hotel room were seized
from the defendant.
U U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 1 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A Upon his arrest for the offence of trafficking in a A
dangerous drug, the defendant stated under caution that he
was only responsible for watching over the dangerous drugs
B and sealing them in bags. B
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, he stated that:
C C
- On 6 November 2022 he rented the hotel room during which
D he received a phone call offering him a job opportunity. D
Later, he left the room with a friend and met an unknown
male who passed him a black plastic bag. He and his
E friend returned to the hotel room with the plastic bag, E
and then he realised the bag contained ketamine.
F F
- Following the realisation that the bag contained
ketamine, he received further instructions from another
G person regarding the weighing and packing of the G
ketamine. As a result, he and his friend went to Temple
Street to buy a white electronic scale for weighing the
H drug. He then returned to the hotel to carry out the H
weighing and packing process.
I I
- However, he was told that the white scale used for the
weighing was inaccurate. So, as instructed, he and his
J friend again went to Temple Street. This time they J
bought another electronic scale in black colour for
weighing and packing the drug. He also bought some
K transparent resealable plastic bags for packing the drug, K
and then he returned to the hotel room alone.
L L
- On 7 November, that is the day before he was arrested, he
started to weigh and pack the drug into transparent
M resealable plastic bags in the hotel room under the M
supervision and the instruction of another person.
Subsequently he was told that the packed drug would be
N collected in the afternoon of 8 November. N
O - The boss told him that the street value of the drug was O
HK$70,000, and he was told to pack the drug for a
monetary reward of $500.
P P
- He admitted that all the equipment seized in the hotel
room was used to weigh and pack the drug.
Q Q
Subsequent enquiries revealed that the hotel room was
R registered in his name. Photographs of the dangerous drug R
and the white electronic scale were retrieved from one of
his mobile phones, his iPhone. His fingerprints were found
S on the white electronic scale and his DNA was also lifted on S
one of the plastic bags.
T T
The street value of the ketamine seized at the time of the
arrest was HK$144,841.
U U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 2 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A The defendant was 17 years of age at the time of the A
offence, and now he is 20 years old. He has studied up to
Form 4. I was told that he was a part-time salesperson at
B the Jumpin Gym USA from early 2021 to early 2022. B
He has a previous conviction for the offence of theft for
C C
which, on 20 April 2023, he was sentenced to rehabilitation
centre for 9 months. About three weeks ago, he was also
D sentenced by the District Court to the detention centre for D
the offence of conspiracy to defraud.
E I understand from the information before me that on 26 July E
2022, he was arrested for a case of theft and was released
on police bail. On 8 November 2022, that is the date of the
F F
present offence, he was arrested in the hotel room for the
drug trafficking case (the present case) as well as the
G District Court case which was the conspiracy to defraud G
case.
H On 31 January 2023 he was charged with the offence of theft. H
On 20 April 2023, in respect of the theft offence he was
I
sentenced to the rehabilitation centre for 9 months. He was I
discharged from the centre on 13 November 2023 and was
required to undergo a 1-year supervision.
J J
On 15 April this year, upon his plea of guilty to the
offence of conspiracy to defraud, he was sentenced in the
K District Court to detention in the detention centre. So now K
he is still serving the detention centre order that was
L imposed on him about three weeks ago. L
And it is obvious from the chronology that when the present
M offence was committed, he was being released on police bail M
for the offence of theft.
N In mitigation, counsel Mr Pannu drew to my attention the N
tragic background about his childhood and his family
O background. I was told that he was 17 years old at the time O
of the offence. Indeed, it should be 17 years and
11 months. He was almost 18 at the time.
P P
I was told that he was an orphan. His mother was a drug
addict. When he was born, his father left her and he was
Q Q
left at Po Leung Kuk until his mother found a partner, and
the stepfather passed away in 2010 when he was 6 years old.
R He was then taken care of by the stepfather’s mum whom he R
called “Mama” or grandmother. Then he was sent to a foster
home for two to three years, and he was under the care and
S the support of his foster mother. He studied up to Form 4 S
level but he repeated many times at Form 4.
T T
Counsel informed me that he had a very limited role in the
present case. He was only involved in the drug for two
U days, and he was purely assisting a friend to watch over the U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 3 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A drug and to weigh and package it when he was asked to do so A
for a small payment of $500. Counsel drew to my attention
that he was not the mastermind, and he was not involved in
B the procurement or the sale of the drug. B
Counsel said the drug discovery was incidental because at
C C
the time he was also involved in the fraud case, the
District Court case, and the hotel room was indeed used for
D the fraud purpose. Counsel said at the material time he was D
being recruited by others to get involved in a technology
phishing conspiracy.
E E
Counsel said that due to his mental disorder of ADHD, he was
a vulnerable person susceptible to being used by other
F F
people, and it was the same group of people who lured him
into drug trafficking.
G G
Counsel said that he had undergone rehabilitation at the
rehabilitation centre, and was now doing well in the
H detention centre. He urged this court, as an exceptional H
means, to sentence him to a detention centre order so that
I
he can continue with the rehabilitation in this case. I
Counsel also relied on the Court of Appeal case of SJ v
Lau Shing Kit [2012] 5 HKLRD 297 to say that it would be
J appropriate for this Court to sentence him to the detention J
centre.
K In the case of Lau Shing Kit which was decided by the Court K
of Appeal in September 2012, the respondent there pleaded
L guilty to the charge of trafficking in 183.99 grammes of L
ketamine and Deputy High Court Judge Longley sentenced him
to undergo a period of detention in a training centre. The
M Secretary for Justice applied for a review of that sentence. M
That particular respondent was also 17 years of age at the
N time of the offence, and that offence was also committed N
while he was on bail for a theft case. In that particular
O case, he was sentenced to the detention centre for the theft O
offence. Apparently the Judge, when sentenced him to the
training centre, took into account the fact that he had
P already concluded his sentence in the detention centre. P
I consider that the background of that case is
Q Q
distinguishable from the present case for the following
reasons. First of all, the quantity of ketamine involved in
R that case was less than the present case. Secondly, in that R
case the respondent was sentenced by the Deputy High Court
Judge to detention in a training centre which might last for
S up to 3 years’ detention. It was the assumption of the S
Deputy Judge at the time that he would be detained in the
detention centre for a 3-year period.
T T
In the present case, the defendant was sentenced by the
U District Court to the detention centre which, according to U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 4 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A the Detention Centres Ordinance (Cap. 239), the period of A
detention is only for a period of between 1 and 6 months,
after which he would need to undergo a 1-year supervision
B which is much shorter than the order of a training centre. B
In any event, I am aware of the Court of Appeal’s
C C
observation at paragraph 17 of that judgment. It was the
view of the Court of Appeal that the sentencing judge was
D wrong, especially having regard to the serious fact that the D
offence was committed whilst on bail, and there was nothing
attaching to the circumstances of the commission of the
E offence that was exceptional. The Court also said that it E
was not appropriate for the judge to assume that the
respondent would be kept in the training centre for as long
F F
as 3 years.
G At paragraph 18 of that judgment, the Court said: G
“Whilst we acknowledge a certain discomfort at the
H notion of sending an offender to prison immediately H
upon the termination of a period in a detention centre,
I
that discomfort must yield to the nature and gravity of I
the fresh offence. If the fresh offence is not of such
a serious nature as to demand a substantial term of
J imprisonment, an imaginative sentencing approach of the J
type upon which the judge embarked is acceptable. If
on the other hand the fresh offence is, by reason of
K its facts or by reason of sentencing policy attaching K
to its category, such as to require a lengthy term of
L imprisonment, then a term of imprisonment should be L
imposed.”
M In that case, the Court of Appeal observed that the sentence M
of imprisonment in the region of 4½ years after plea ought
to have been imposed.
N N
I am also aware of the remarks made by the Court at
O paragraph 22: O
“… Part of the messy history hitherto was created by
P the fact that the respondent was sentenced for the P
theft offence before he was sentenced for the drugs
offence. That ought not to have happened. Had the
Q Q
magistrate who dealt with the theft offences been
informed that the respondent was awaiting trial for the
R much more serious offence of drug trafficking, he would R
no doubt have adjourned sentence for the theft
offences.”
S S
I do echo that remark of the Court of Appeal.
T T
With hindsight, the defendant in this case should have been
sentenced for the drug offence well before he was sentenced
U in the District Court for the conspiracy to defraud. U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 5 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Be that as it may, it was the case that three weeks ago he
was sentenced to the detention centre, and now he is facing
B the sentence for the drug offence in the High Court. B
I have taken into account all the matters urged upon me by
C C
defence counsel who had tried his very best to urge this
court to impose a detention centre order, or at least to
D call for a Young Offender Assessment Panel’s report, so that D
I can consider any sentence other than an immediate
custodial sentence.
E E
A total of five mitigation letters were also submitted in
mitigation, three of which had already been used in
F F
mitigation during his sentence for the conspiracy to defraud
case in the District Court. Those letters were prepared,
G first of all, by his adoptive parents, secondly, by a former G
class teacher, and by a family friend, by a former classmate
and also by a friend. All of them urged this Court to have
H mercy on him in view of his poor childhood and family H
background.
I I
However, I must point out that for offences as serious as
trafficking in dangerous drug, especially where a
J substantial quantity of drug is concerned, those family J
circumstances are of little weight when mitigation is
concerned.
K K
On the other hand, since counsel had also submitted the
L ‘Detention Centre/Training Centre Suitability Report’ L
(prepared for the District Court case) for my consideration,
I have taken into account the information stated in the
M Report when I considered whether it is worthwhile to adopt M
an unusual approach for not sentencing him to immediate
custodial sentence in this case.
N N
According to the Suitability Report, it was stated that the
O defendant became an orphan, and he was being adopted by his O
adoptive grandparents in 2008. He resided with the adoptive
family, and also, on and off, he stayed with his godmother
P at her place of abode. The living condition was considered P
to be fair.
Q Q
It was said that he worked as a shop attendant at the
Jumpin Gym in Causeway Bay between the period of September
R 2020 and February 2022. He did not take up any formal R
employment afterwards.
S Regarding his medical history, it was said that he claimed S
he was assessed to have attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia in his lower primaries, but he
T T
defaulted the follow-up treatment since 2017. Indeed, he
defaulted all the follow-up treatment on his special needs
U since September 2017. U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 6 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
According to the Report, he took part in drug peddling
activities twice in October 2022 and November 2022, and he
B tasted ketamine once in early November 2022. And he joined B
the Sun Yee On (Tsim Sha Tsui) triad society in February
2022.
C C
Later, on 26 July that year, he was arrested for the offence
D of theft and released on bail. During the bail period, he D
began to participate in drug peddling activities in October
2022 and tasted ketamine once in early November 2022.
E Eventually he was arrested for the trafficking in dangerous E
drug and the conspiracy to defraud offences respectively on
8 November that year.
F F
Later, on 20 April 2023 he was sentenced to the
G rehabilitation centre for the theft case in Eastern G
Magistracy. He was discharged from the rehabilitation
centre on 13 November 2023, subject to a 1-year statutory
H supervision. It was stated that his overall performance H
while remanding in custody was unsatisfactory for which he
I
was twice awarded disciplinary punishment for disobeying the I
staff’s instructions and possessing an unauthorised book in
July 2024. His statutory supervision under the
J Rehabilitation Centres Ordinance expired in November 2024. J
So, in conclusion, the reporting officer said that he was an
K orphan adopted by his adoptive grandparents at the age of 4, K
and after entering to secondary school he failed to catch up
L with the study. While he was studying Form 3 he joined L
triad society in February 2022. In July 2022 he was
arrested for the offence of theft. During the bail period,
M he even started participating in drug peddling activities M
and tasted ketamine.
N Then he was arrested for the drug offence and the fraud N
offence in November, and sentenced to the rehabilitation
O centre for the offence of theft in 2023. Upon the O
completion of his disciplinary training, he was discharged
from the rehabilitation centre in November 2023 and
P underwent a 1-year statutory supervision. While remanding P
in custody, he failed to comply with the centre rules.
Q Q
That is the content of the Report.
R It is well established in many cases that if the offence R
involves trafficking of dangerous drugs on a serious scale,
then a detention centre order is wrong in principle. I bear
S in mind the fact that this is a case involving a serious S
offence, and the gravity of the offence was revealed by the
quantity of the ketamine involved.
T T
I also bear in mind the fact that he cannot be said to be a
U person of extreme youth at the time when he committed the U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 7 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A present offence. He was almost 18 years old, and he was not A
even a person of clear record. At that time he was being
released on police bail for a case of theft, and at the same
B time when he committed the said drug trafficking offence, he B
was also committing a case of fraud together with other
people.
C C
Bearing in mind the sentencing principle, all the cases and
D the information before me, I consider that a detention D
centre order or a training centre order would be wrong in
principle in this case, and there is nothing to warrant any
E departure from the normal guidelines. E
In this particular case, in sentencing the defendant I do
F F
bear in mind the approach as stated by the Court of Appeal
in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290
G as clarified by the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 G
HKLRD 1186.
H This case involves a total of 204.1 grammes of ketamine H
narcotic. According to the guidelines, on a pure arithmetic
I
calculation the starting point for 204.1 grammes of ketamine I
narcotic should be 7 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
However, I should consider the notional starting point after
J having taken into account the role and culpability of the J
defendant.
K According to the Summary of Facts, the defendant was K
involved in the buying of one electronic scale and the
L packaging of the drug on 6 November, that is two days before L
he was arrested. When he was informed that the electronic
scale was not accurate, he went out to buy a second
M electronic scale and again he used that electronic scale to M
weigh and package the drug under the instruction of the
boss.
N N
So, in this particular case he was not only a storekeeper.
O He was also involved in the weighing and packaging of the O
drug for a period of two days before he was arrested. His
role was not merely one of a storekeeper. Of course, I do
P take into account the fact that he was not a courier on the P
information before me.
Q Q
Having considered his role and culpability in this case,
especially the fact that he was involved in the weighing and
R the packaging of the drug for two days in a hotel room which R
was rented in his name, I consider that the notional
starting point after trial should be 8 years’ imprisonment.
S S
The defendant committed the present offence when he was
being released on police bail for the theft case. As such I
T T
consider that the starting point should be enhanced by a
total of 3 months. That would raise the starting point to 8
U years and 3 months’ imprisonment. U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 8 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Other than his early plea of guilty, I do not see any valid
mitigation factor that would entitle him to any further
B discount. So, after the one-third discount for his plea of B
guilty, the ultimate sentence is 5½ years’ imprisonment.
C C
I do bear in mind about the unusual or tragic background of
his childhood, but I must emphasise that the same background
D or the same information should not be used again and again D
to pray for leniency in one case after another. In any
event, in this case I am prepared to give him a further
E discount of 3 months as a matter of mercy for the E
information before me, even though I realised that the same
information had already been used in the mitigation of other
F F
cases.
G So, the ultimate sentence that he is sentenced to is 5 years G
and 3 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I I/we certify that to the best of my/our ability
I
and skill, the foregoing is a true transcript
of the audio recording of the above proceedings
J J
K K
.........................................
Bruce Jericho Fuellas Torres
Date: 19 May 2025
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT18/9.5.2025/TB 9 HCCC 429/2024(1)/Sentence
V V