A A
B B
DCCC 886/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1630 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 886 OF 2024
F F
G ———————— G
HKSAR
H H
v
I NG CHI WAI I
————————
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court K
Date: 23 September 2025
L L
Present: Mr. Davies Oliver Howell, Counsel on flat, for HKSAR
M Mr Boyton David and Ms Wong Gretel Chauntae, instructed M
by T K Tsui & Co, for the defendant
N N
Offences: [1] Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
O O
[2] Doing an act or a series of acts tending and intended to
P pervert the course of public justice (作出一項或一連串傾向 P
並意圖妨礙司法公正的作為)
Q Q
R ———————————————— R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
————————————————
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant faces a Charge Sheet consisting of two charges
C as follows. C
D D
2. Charge 1 is Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to
E section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. E
Particulars are that he, on 9 March 2024, at the carpark entrance on Ground
F F
Floor, Harbour Centre Tower 2, No 8 Hok Cheung Street, Hung Hom,
G Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, G
namely 10.60 grammes of a solid containing 8.71 grammes of cocaine.
H H
I 3. Charge 2 is Doing an act or a series of acts tending and I
intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to Common Law
J J
and punishable under section 101I(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance,
K Cap 221. K
L L
4. The defendant pleaded not guilty to Charge 1 but guilty to the
M alternative offence of Possession of a dangerous drug. The prosecution did M
not accept the guilty plea resulting in a trial on the original charge.
N N
O 5. The defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 2. His sentencing on O
Charge 2 was adjourned until the end of trial relating to Charge 1.
P P
Q Q
6. After trial, I found the defendant not guilty of Charge 1 but
R
guilty of the statutory alternative of possession of a dangerous drug. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Facts as admitted or found
C C
7. On 9 March 2024 at about 22:34 hours, the defendant was
D D
acting furtively at the carpark of Harbour Centre Tower 2. He looked
E around then entered the building via a gap in the entrance of the carpark. E
F F
8. At about 22:35 hours, plainclothes police officers on patrol
G intercepted the defendant and revealed their police identities. They G
escorted the defendant to a nearby location to make enquiries.
H H
I 9. During a search of the defendant, the defendant attempted to I
walk away but was stopped. He continued to move around but was
J J
eventually pressed down on the ground. It was noticed that the defendant
K was chewing something. He was repeatedly asked to spit it out. K
L L
10. After some time had elapsed, the defendant spat out a
M bloodstained transparent bag containing 10.6 grammes of a solid M
containing 8.71 grammes of cocaine.
N N
O 11. The defendant admitted that by chewing and attempting to O
swallow the bag of dangerous drug, he intended to pervert the course of
P P
justice.
Q Q
R
Criminal record R
S S
12. The defendant has a clear record.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Antecedents
C C
13. The defendant is aged 39 (38 at the time of the offences),
D D
educated to F4 level, worked as a driver earning a monthly salary of around
E $25,000. The defendant is married with a daughter. His other family E
members consist of his mother and three elder siblings.
F F
G Mitigation G
H H
14. Mr David Boyton and Ms Gretel Wong both of counsel
I mitigated on behalf of the defendant. The following is a summary of the I
mitigation submissions.
J J
K 15. Defence referred to para 17 of HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik [2001] K
1 HKC 261 and submitted that:
L L
M (a) The usual starting point is 12 to 18 months; and M
N N
(b) The court needs to consider “latent risk”.
O O
16. In relation to “latent risk”, defence referred to the 3-step
P P
approach in HKSAR v Wan Sheung Sum [2000] 1 HKLRD 405 at 407F-H:
Q Q
“Step 1: The judge should normally determine a starting point of
R R
between 1 year to 18 months’ imprisonment.
S Step 2: The starting point is increased or enhanced to take S
account of the latent risk factor in order to arrive at a total
sentence. This will reflect the risk to society of the drugs being
T redistributed and finding their way into other hands apart from T
the offender’s. The latent risk will be determined from all the
U circumstances in any particular case, including of course the U
V V
-5-
A A
B quantity of drugs possessed and the personal circumstances of B
the offender.
C C
Step 3: The total sentence is then adjusted to take account of the
mitigating factors, such as a guilty plea.”
D D
17. Defence in particular drew my attention to a later paragraph
E E
in the judgment at 409B-C in relation to the second step:
F F
“The second step involves the latent risk factor. It is apparent
G G
from all the circumstances that the risk was not a great one. The
applicant was a heroin addict. He had no record for any offence
H of drug trafficking. He was employed and, on the evidence, it H
appears that he kept the drugs in his premises without other
people knowing that he was doing so. We consider that the
I latent risk factor should not have attracted an additional sentence I
of more than 6 months…”
J J
18. Defence pointed out that in that case, the Court of Appeal
K K
eventually adopted a starting point of 16 months enhanced by 6 months for
L slight latent risk which involved 34.33 grammes of heroin hydrochloride L
narcotics.
M M
N 19. Back to the present case, defence emphasized that the latent N
risk should fall into the lower end of spectrum on the following grounds:-
O O
P (a) Defendant has a stable income at all material times; P
Q Q
(b) The absence of a previous trafficking record;
R R
(c) The quantity and packaging of the narcotic content did
S S
not indicate a high risk of dissemination of this hoard;
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
(d) The quantity of the narcotic contents ie 8.71 grammes
C of cocaine is far less than that in Wan Sheung Sum; and C
D D
(e) The drug was for self-consumption, and the defendant
E did not intend to share it with anyone. E
F F
20. Along the same lines, defence submitted that the present case
G should come into a lower bracket in the range between 12 and 18 months G
and attract a far lower enhancement than that in Wan Sheung Sum.
H H
I 21. As disclosed in the DATC report, the defendant was born in I
the Mainland being the youngest among 5 siblings (one already passed
J J
away) and he came to Hong Kong for family reunion in his early childhood.
K He worked as a dim sum apprentice when he dropped out of school at K
Secondary 4. He has abstained from drugs since arrest.
L L
M 22. Around 10 years ago, the defendant decided to become a M
chauffeur with a more flexible work-time to cope with his newborn
N N
daughter.
O O
23. The defendant committed the possession offence out of
P P
despair resulting from bad marital relationship.
Q Q
R
24. Since arrest, the defendant participated in volunteer and R
church activities. He has reconciled his relationship with his wife who
S S
demonstrated her forgiveness and love by her presence in every court
T
hearing. Defendant’s mother is also in court to give him support. T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
25. The defendant has heard the clangs of prison gate which was
C a wake-up call for him. C
D D
26. On Charge 2, defence submitted that the court can at its
E discretion impose any term of imprisonment and any amount of fine subject E
to the maximum sentencing jurisdiction of the court (see section 101I(5) of
F F
the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221).
G G
27. Defence referred to Secretary for Justice v Lee Ying Tung
H H
[2023] 3 HKLRD 667 for general sentencing principles on the offence of
I Perverting the course of public justice including the identification of the I
three sentencing factors namely (a) seriousness of the substantive offence
J J
to which the perverting relates; (b) degree of persistence of offender’s
K conduct; and (c) effect of offender’s conduct. K
L L
28. Defence submitted that there must be a degree of
M proportionality between the seriousness of the substantive drug charge and M
the perverting charge. Defence prayed in aid the sentencing approach of
N N
Judge Casewell in HKSAR v Lam Hon Sun Hanson DCCC 203/2017 at
O para 26. O
P P
29. Defence submitted that the act that the defendant committed
Q Q
was through panic and the attempt to destroy the drug was conducted in a
R
rather amateurish way; that the panic and ineptness is evident by the way R
the defendant ended up cutting his mouth on the plastic wrappings while
S S
committing the offence.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
30. Defence acknowledged that the plea to Charge 2 was not at
C the earliest opportunity, but several months before the scheduled trial. C
Defence asked for 25% off from the starting point.
D D
E 31. Defence asked that a substantial part of the sentence on E
Charge 1 be made to run concurrently with that on Charge 2 as they are
F F
concomitant of one another.
G G
32. Defence submitted on behalf of the defendant one mitigation
H H
letter written in Chinese (with English translation) by a preacher of a
I Christian organization. The contents generally are that the defendant has I
taken part in volunteer and church activities since arrest. The writer asked
J J
for a lenient sentence for the defendant so he may have a chance for reform.
K K
33. Defence also submitted a number of certificates of
L L
appreciation1 for volunteer activities undertaken by the defendant whilst
M awaiting trial. M
N N
Report
O O
34. For the reason that the defendant has been convicted of
P P
possession of a dangerous drug, I called for a Drug Addiction Treatment
Q Q
Centre Suitability Report which returned with a conclusion that the
R
defendant is not a drug dependant and therefore he is considered not R
suitable for admission to such a centre.
S S
T T
1
U with English translation U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Sentence
C C
35. I have borne in mind all the authorities that have been urged
D D
upon me.
E E
36. On Charge 1, I will adopt 12 months’ imprisonment as the
F F
basic starting point. As for the latent risk of dissemination, after
G considering the circumstances of the defendant, I do not assess the risk to G
be a high one. As a result, I will simply add 3 months to arrive at the final
H H
starting point for Charge 1 of 15 months’ imprisonment.
I I
37. On Charge 2, I agree that the starting point needs to be
J J
proportionate to that of the substantive charge to which the perverting
K relates. In this case, the perverting took the form of attempting to destroy K
the evidence of possession of a dangerous drug. The duration of the
L L
conduct was quite long in terms of minutes as could be evidenced by the
M CCTV footage I have seen in open court – the defendant was quite resistant M
to the police getting their hands on the dangerous drug. In the end, about
N N
1/4 of the purchase has gone astray and was unrecovered.
O O
38. Bearing all these factors in mind, I adjudge an appropriate
P P
starting point to be 5 and 1/3 months’ imprisonment.
Q Q
R
39. The defendant pleaded guilty to the alternative offence of R
possession of a dangerous drug in good time earning for himself the full
S S
1/3 sentencing discount. The defendant indicated his guilty plea to Charge
T
2 late but not very late. I will grant him 25% sentencing discount as urged. T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify any further
C sentence reduction. C
D D
40. The commission of the offence subject of Charge 2 does not
E necessarily follow that of Charge 1. I do not consider them to be E
concomitant to one another. In principle, their sentences ought to run
F F
consecutively to one another subject only to totality which I will bear in
G mind when determining the final sentence. G
H H
(Defendant, please stand)
I I
41. For the alternative offence to Charge 1 namely possession of
J J
a dangerous drug, the sentence is 10 months’ imprisonment.
K K
42. For Charge 2, the sentence is 4 months’ imprisonment.
L L
M 43. I order that 2 months of the sentence on Charge 2 are to run M
consecutively to the sentence on the alternative offence to Charge 1. The
N N
final sentence is therefore one of 12 months’ imprisonment.
O O
P P
Q ( Isaac Tam ) Q
District Judge
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 886/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1630 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 886 OF 2024
F F
G ———————— G
HKSAR
H H
v
I NG CHI WAI I
————————
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court K
Date: 23 September 2025
L L
Present: Mr. Davies Oliver Howell, Counsel on flat, for HKSAR
M Mr Boyton David and Ms Wong Gretel Chauntae, instructed M
by T K Tsui & Co, for the defendant
N N
Offences: [1] Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
O O
[2] Doing an act or a series of acts tending and intended to
P pervert the course of public justice (作出一項或一連串傾向 P
並意圖妨礙司法公正的作為)
Q Q
R ———————————————— R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
————————————————
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant faces a Charge Sheet consisting of two charges
C as follows. C
D D
2. Charge 1 is Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to
E section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. E
Particulars are that he, on 9 March 2024, at the carpark entrance on Ground
F F
Floor, Harbour Centre Tower 2, No 8 Hok Cheung Street, Hung Hom,
G Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, G
namely 10.60 grammes of a solid containing 8.71 grammes of cocaine.
H H
I 3. Charge 2 is Doing an act or a series of acts tending and I
intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to Common Law
J J
and punishable under section 101I(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance,
K Cap 221. K
L L
4. The defendant pleaded not guilty to Charge 1 but guilty to the
M alternative offence of Possession of a dangerous drug. The prosecution did M
not accept the guilty plea resulting in a trial on the original charge.
N N
O 5. The defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 2. His sentencing on O
Charge 2 was adjourned until the end of trial relating to Charge 1.
P P
Q Q
6. After trial, I found the defendant not guilty of Charge 1 but
R
guilty of the statutory alternative of possession of a dangerous drug. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Facts as admitted or found
C C
7. On 9 March 2024 at about 22:34 hours, the defendant was
D D
acting furtively at the carpark of Harbour Centre Tower 2. He looked
E around then entered the building via a gap in the entrance of the carpark. E
F F
8. At about 22:35 hours, plainclothes police officers on patrol
G intercepted the defendant and revealed their police identities. They G
escorted the defendant to a nearby location to make enquiries.
H H
I 9. During a search of the defendant, the defendant attempted to I
walk away but was stopped. He continued to move around but was
J J
eventually pressed down on the ground. It was noticed that the defendant
K was chewing something. He was repeatedly asked to spit it out. K
L L
10. After some time had elapsed, the defendant spat out a
M bloodstained transparent bag containing 10.6 grammes of a solid M
containing 8.71 grammes of cocaine.
N N
O 11. The defendant admitted that by chewing and attempting to O
swallow the bag of dangerous drug, he intended to pervert the course of
P P
justice.
Q Q
R
Criminal record R
S S
12. The defendant has a clear record.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Antecedents
C C
13. The defendant is aged 39 (38 at the time of the offences),
D D
educated to F4 level, worked as a driver earning a monthly salary of around
E $25,000. The defendant is married with a daughter. His other family E
members consist of his mother and three elder siblings.
F F
G Mitigation G
H H
14. Mr David Boyton and Ms Gretel Wong both of counsel
I mitigated on behalf of the defendant. The following is a summary of the I
mitigation submissions.
J J
K 15. Defence referred to para 17 of HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik [2001] K
1 HKC 261 and submitted that:
L L
M (a) The usual starting point is 12 to 18 months; and M
N N
(b) The court needs to consider “latent risk”.
O O
16. In relation to “latent risk”, defence referred to the 3-step
P P
approach in HKSAR v Wan Sheung Sum [2000] 1 HKLRD 405 at 407F-H:
Q Q
“Step 1: The judge should normally determine a starting point of
R R
between 1 year to 18 months’ imprisonment.
S Step 2: The starting point is increased or enhanced to take S
account of the latent risk factor in order to arrive at a total
sentence. This will reflect the risk to society of the drugs being
T redistributed and finding their way into other hands apart from T
the offender’s. The latent risk will be determined from all the
U circumstances in any particular case, including of course the U
V V
-5-
A A
B quantity of drugs possessed and the personal circumstances of B
the offender.
C C
Step 3: The total sentence is then adjusted to take account of the
mitigating factors, such as a guilty plea.”
D D
17. Defence in particular drew my attention to a later paragraph
E E
in the judgment at 409B-C in relation to the second step:
F F
“The second step involves the latent risk factor. It is apparent
G G
from all the circumstances that the risk was not a great one. The
applicant was a heroin addict. He had no record for any offence
H of drug trafficking. He was employed and, on the evidence, it H
appears that he kept the drugs in his premises without other
people knowing that he was doing so. We consider that the
I latent risk factor should not have attracted an additional sentence I
of more than 6 months…”
J J
18. Defence pointed out that in that case, the Court of Appeal
K K
eventually adopted a starting point of 16 months enhanced by 6 months for
L slight latent risk which involved 34.33 grammes of heroin hydrochloride L
narcotics.
M M
N 19. Back to the present case, defence emphasized that the latent N
risk should fall into the lower end of spectrum on the following grounds:-
O O
P (a) Defendant has a stable income at all material times; P
Q Q
(b) The absence of a previous trafficking record;
R R
(c) The quantity and packaging of the narcotic content did
S S
not indicate a high risk of dissemination of this hoard;
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
(d) The quantity of the narcotic contents ie 8.71 grammes
C of cocaine is far less than that in Wan Sheung Sum; and C
D D
(e) The drug was for self-consumption, and the defendant
E did not intend to share it with anyone. E
F F
20. Along the same lines, defence submitted that the present case
G should come into a lower bracket in the range between 12 and 18 months G
and attract a far lower enhancement than that in Wan Sheung Sum.
H H
I 21. As disclosed in the DATC report, the defendant was born in I
the Mainland being the youngest among 5 siblings (one already passed
J J
away) and he came to Hong Kong for family reunion in his early childhood.
K He worked as a dim sum apprentice when he dropped out of school at K
Secondary 4. He has abstained from drugs since arrest.
L L
M 22. Around 10 years ago, the defendant decided to become a M
chauffeur with a more flexible work-time to cope with his newborn
N N
daughter.
O O
23. The defendant committed the possession offence out of
P P
despair resulting from bad marital relationship.
Q Q
R
24. Since arrest, the defendant participated in volunteer and R
church activities. He has reconciled his relationship with his wife who
S S
demonstrated her forgiveness and love by her presence in every court
T
hearing. Defendant’s mother is also in court to give him support. T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
25. The defendant has heard the clangs of prison gate which was
C a wake-up call for him. C
D D
26. On Charge 2, defence submitted that the court can at its
E discretion impose any term of imprisonment and any amount of fine subject E
to the maximum sentencing jurisdiction of the court (see section 101I(5) of
F F
the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221).
G G
27. Defence referred to Secretary for Justice v Lee Ying Tung
H H
[2023] 3 HKLRD 667 for general sentencing principles on the offence of
I Perverting the course of public justice including the identification of the I
three sentencing factors namely (a) seriousness of the substantive offence
J J
to which the perverting relates; (b) degree of persistence of offender’s
K conduct; and (c) effect of offender’s conduct. K
L L
28. Defence submitted that there must be a degree of
M proportionality between the seriousness of the substantive drug charge and M
the perverting charge. Defence prayed in aid the sentencing approach of
N N
Judge Casewell in HKSAR v Lam Hon Sun Hanson DCCC 203/2017 at
O para 26. O
P P
29. Defence submitted that the act that the defendant committed
Q Q
was through panic and the attempt to destroy the drug was conducted in a
R
rather amateurish way; that the panic and ineptness is evident by the way R
the defendant ended up cutting his mouth on the plastic wrappings while
S S
committing the offence.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
30. Defence acknowledged that the plea to Charge 2 was not at
C the earliest opportunity, but several months before the scheduled trial. C
Defence asked for 25% off from the starting point.
D D
E 31. Defence asked that a substantial part of the sentence on E
Charge 1 be made to run concurrently with that on Charge 2 as they are
F F
concomitant of one another.
G G
32. Defence submitted on behalf of the defendant one mitigation
H H
letter written in Chinese (with English translation) by a preacher of a
I Christian organization. The contents generally are that the defendant has I
taken part in volunteer and church activities since arrest. The writer asked
J J
for a lenient sentence for the defendant so he may have a chance for reform.
K K
33. Defence also submitted a number of certificates of
L L
appreciation1 for volunteer activities undertaken by the defendant whilst
M awaiting trial. M
N N
Report
O O
34. For the reason that the defendant has been convicted of
P P
possession of a dangerous drug, I called for a Drug Addiction Treatment
Q Q
Centre Suitability Report which returned with a conclusion that the
R
defendant is not a drug dependant and therefore he is considered not R
suitable for admission to such a centre.
S S
T T
1
U with English translation U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Sentence
C C
35. I have borne in mind all the authorities that have been urged
D D
upon me.
E E
36. On Charge 1, I will adopt 12 months’ imprisonment as the
F F
basic starting point. As for the latent risk of dissemination, after
G considering the circumstances of the defendant, I do not assess the risk to G
be a high one. As a result, I will simply add 3 months to arrive at the final
H H
starting point for Charge 1 of 15 months’ imprisonment.
I I
37. On Charge 2, I agree that the starting point needs to be
J J
proportionate to that of the substantive charge to which the perverting
K relates. In this case, the perverting took the form of attempting to destroy K
the evidence of possession of a dangerous drug. The duration of the
L L
conduct was quite long in terms of minutes as could be evidenced by the
M CCTV footage I have seen in open court – the defendant was quite resistant M
to the police getting their hands on the dangerous drug. In the end, about
N N
1/4 of the purchase has gone astray and was unrecovered.
O O
38. Bearing all these factors in mind, I adjudge an appropriate
P P
starting point to be 5 and 1/3 months’ imprisonment.
Q Q
R
39. The defendant pleaded guilty to the alternative offence of R
possession of a dangerous drug in good time earning for himself the full
S S
1/3 sentencing discount. The defendant indicated his guilty plea to Charge
T
2 late but not very late. I will grant him 25% sentencing discount as urged. T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify any further
C sentence reduction. C
D D
40. The commission of the offence subject of Charge 2 does not
E necessarily follow that of Charge 1. I do not consider them to be E
concomitant to one another. In principle, their sentences ought to run
F F
consecutively to one another subject only to totality which I will bear in
G mind when determining the final sentence. G
H H
(Defendant, please stand)
I I
41. For the alternative offence to Charge 1 namely possession of
J J
a dangerous drug, the sentence is 10 months’ imprisonment.
K K
42. For Charge 2, the sentence is 4 months’ imprisonment.
L L
M 43. I order that 2 months of the sentence on Charge 2 are to run M
consecutively to the sentence on the alternative offence to Charge 1. The
N N
final sentence is therefore one of 12 months’ imprisonment.
O O
P P
Q ( Isaac Tam ) Q
District Judge
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V