Trafficking in Dangerous Drug

Trafficking in dangerous drug is an offence under Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap. 134). A person may be guilty of trafficking if they:

• Import dangerous drugs into Hong Kong or arrange for their importation;
  

• Export or arrange the export of such drugs;
  

• Supply dangerous drugs to others, or offer to do so;

• Possess dangerous drugs with the intent to supply them to others.

Importing or exporting dangerous drugs qualifies as trafficking—even if the drugs are meant for personal use. However, if the court is satisfied that the drugs were for self-consumption, a lighter sentence may be imposed. 

Trafficking also includes non-commercial acts such as gifting or sharing drugs. Supplying dangerous drugs to another person, regardless of payment, amounts to trafficking.

Trafficking offences are punished severely, especially when drugs are imported for sale. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Even small quantities often result in custodial sentences. Factors such as youth or a clean criminal record offer limited mitigation—particularly when commercial intent is involved.

Under Hong Kong law, dangerous drugs are regulated by the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap. 134), which sets out the rules for their control, possession, trafficking, manufacture, and import or export. The specific substances classified as “dangerous drugs” are listed in the First Schedule of the Ordinance.

Read our article listing out Dangerous Drugs in Hong Kong

The gravity of a drug trafficking offence is assessed primarily by the harm it causes or has the potential to cause, which is determined by the type and quantity of the drug involved. To begin the sentencing process, the judge must first identify the applicable sentencing guideline band that corresponds to the quantity of the specific drug. This ensures a consistent and principled approach to determining appropriate penalties for such offences.

Methamphetamine, also known as “ice” or “crystal meth,” is a powerful and highly addictive synthetic stimulant. Unlike cocaine and heroin, which now share a common sentencing framework after HKSAR v Huang Ruifang, methamphetamine remains subject to its own distinct sentencing guidelines in Hong Kong. This separate approach reflects the particular risks and patterns of abuse associated with methamphetamine, and the courts continue to apply a different set of tariff bands when determining sentences for its trafficking. Since HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun, "Ice" has been considered a more potent drug than cocaine or heroin.

Cocaine and heroin are both powerful, illegal narcotic drugs that are commonly trafficked and abused worldwide. Cocaine is a stimulant derived from coca leaves, while heroin is an opioid processed from morphine. Despite their different effects on the body, the courts in Hong Kong now treat them similarly for sentencing purposes. Following the decision in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang, both substances fall under the same sentencing framework when trafficked, meaning the same guidelines apply regardless of whether the drug involved is cocaine or heroin.

For the trafficking of ketamine and ecstasy, the applicable sentencing guideline is established in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. In this case, the Court of Appeal set out benchmark sentencing ranges based on the quantity of these substances trafficked, recognizing their widespread abuse and harmful effects. Subsequently, in HKSAR v Wong Kin Kau [2010] 4 HKC 443, the court held that Nimetazepam should be subject to the same sentencing guidelines as ketamine and ecstasy, given its comparable potency and similar impact on public health. This ensures consistency in sentencing for drugs with analogous effects and abuse potential.

For offences involving the trafficking of herbal cannabis or cannabis resin, the applicable sentencing guidelines are established in the case of HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329. In this decision, the Court of Appeal provided a structured framework for determining the appropriate sentence based on the quantity of the drug trafficked. The judgment clarified the categorisation of quantities into different sentencing bands and emphasized the need for consistency and proportionality in sentencing. This case now serves as the leading authority in Hong Kong for sentencing in cannabis trafficking cases, replacing earlier guidelines and ensuring a more coherent approach across similar offences.

​As of February 14, 2025, Hong Kong has officially classified "space oil"—a substance containing etomidate and its analogues metomidate, propoxate, and isopropoxate—as a dangerous drug under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap. 134). This reclassification significantly increases the legal penalties associated with the substance. Individuals convicted of trafficking or illicit manufacturing of space oil now face a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of HK$5 million. Possession and consumption of space oil carry a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment and a fine of HK$1 million.

Read our article on Etomidate

The second key step in sentencing for trafficking in dangerous drugs, as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph CACC 93/2019, is assessing the defendant's role and level of culpability based on the evidence. Courts typically categorize traffickers into a hierarchy to guide sentencing decisions.

A. Courier or Storekeeper

These individuals transport or store drugs for others and are considered the baseline for sentencing guidelines.

Even when someone appears to fit the role of a ‘courier’ in a drug trafficking case, defining this role precisely can be challenging. Often, it is unclear why a person was caught with a large quantity of dangerous drugs. They might have collected the drugs for reasons that aren't explained, been delivering them for someone else, or potentially intended to sell them themselves.

Unless there is a clear admission or strong evidence—either direct or circumstantial—proving that the person was actively selling drugs to others, courts generally treat them as a courier or storekeeper. In such cases, sentencing follows the standard guidelines set for these lower-level roles.

However, it's important to recognize that not all couriers and storekeepers are equally responsible. Some may play a more active or knowing part in the operation than others. Occasionally, a person’s actions may not fully align with either role. Still, courts have found this general approach to be fair and practical in most cases.

B. Actual or Direct Trafficker

This refers to defendants who are proven (by evidence or admission) to be actively selling or distributing drugs. This role is more serious than that of a courier or storekeeper. In R v Yeung Ying-kan, the court held that direct trafficking deserves harsher punishment than simple possession with intent to traffic.

In a case like HKSAR v Islam Azharul, evidence of involvement in packaging, storing, and preparing drugs for sale led to enhanced sentences due to increased culpability.

C. Manager or Organiser

These defendants direct or manage others in distributing drugs. As seen in HKSAR v Chung Ka Lun, organising drug deliveries and coordinating others justifies a higher sentence than that for a courier or seller.

D. Operator or Financial Controller

These individuals oversee or finance drug operations for profit. They occupy a higher position in the hierarchy due to their significant control and financial benefit, as discussed in R v Xiong Xu and Others.

E. International Operator

The most serious role involves coordinating large-scale, cross-border drug operations. These cases warrant the most severe penalties.

Once the defendant’s role and culpability have been assessed, the sentencing judge must determine where the defendant falls within the relevant sentencing guideline band. This involves a careful evaluation of how the individual’s role fits within the broader context of the offence. Importantly, the judge retains discretion to depart from the guideline band—either above or below—when justified by the specific circumstances of the case. As emphasized by Keith JA in HKSAR v Leung Kwai Ping, the defendant’s role in the offence is a crucial factor in determining the appropriate point within the sentencing range.

It is well established that a prior conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs warrants an upward adjustment of the sentencing starting point (see R v Lau Tak Ming; HKSAR v Abdallah; HKSAR v Chau Hon Kwong [2011] 1 HKLRD 630).

It is well established that trafficking in two or more types of dangerous drugs, even if separately packaged, constitutes an aggravating factor due to the trafficker's capacity to supply a broader market and the heightened harm caused by the combined use of different drugs (see Chan Yuk Leong, paras 23–25).

An upward adjustment of the sentencing starting point is justified where a non-refoulement claimant, while enjoying the protection and privileges afforded by the Hong Kong community, commits a serious offence, thereby abusing the hospitality extended to him. The extent of such enhancement is a matter for the sentencing judge’s discretion, to be determined in light of the individual circumstances and the gravity and impact of the particular offence (see HKSAR v Ali Saif [2018] HKCA 358; HKSAR v Shah Syed Arif [2016] 4 HKLRD 664).

In drug trafficking cases, mitigating factors—particularly personal circumstances—generally carry little weight unless they are exceptional. Courts have emphasized that, due to the serious harm these offences cause to individuals and society, meaningful mitigation is rare beyond a guilty plea. However, if a significant portion of the drugs in the defendant’s possession is proven or accepted to be for personal use rather than trafficking, a sentence reduction may be considered.  

A guilty plea can serve as a mitigating factor in sentencing, with defendants typically receiving a reduction of up to one-third of the sentence if the plea is entered at the earliest opportunity. This discount reflects the time and resources saved by avoiding a trial, as well as the acknowledgment of responsibility. However, the reduction may be less if the plea is entered later in the proceedings.

Providing assistance to the authorities is a significant mitigating factor and can result in a sentence reduction of up to one-third on its own. When combined with a guilty plea, this can raise the total possible discount to a maximum of two-thirds. Such assistance typically involves providing useful information that aids law enforcement, such as identifying co-offenders or disrupting criminal operations, and is assessed on its value and reliability.

Other forms of mitigation, beyond a guilty plea or assistance to authorities, remain somewhat ambiguous in their application. It is unclear whether such mitigation should be factored into the sentencing process by adjusting the final starting point, or treated as a separate step at the end. These discretionary allowances may reflect compassionate considerations, such as the defendant’s personal circumstances, or specific contributions like involvement in rehabilitative efforts—for example, participation in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign, which the Court of Appeal has previously recognized with a sentencing discount of up to three months.

The final stage of the sentencing process requires the judge to take a step back and assess the sentence as a whole. This is to ensure that, in light of all the circumstances surrounding both the offence and the offender, the sentence is fair, just, and proportionate. When multiple charges or aggravating factors are present—each potentially justifying an upward adjustment—the sentencing judge must remain vigilant to avoid imposing a sentence that is excessive relative to the defendant’s overall criminality.

As Justice Zervos noted in Islam Azharul, when enhancements are applied for various aggravating factors, the court must ensure that their cumulative effect does not result in an unduly harsh or disproportionate sentence. He emphasized:

“Having specified the enhancements given for the aggravating factors, it is important for the sentencing court to ensure that the aggregation of the enhancements does not result in an oppressive and overloaded sentence, and by the application of the totality principle this will require determining an appropriate effective total of the enhancements.”

This principle has been reinforced in recent judgments, including HKSAR v Ali Qasim and HKSAR v Islam Shafiqul, where the Court similarly highlighted the importance of the totality principle in maintaining balance and fairness in sentencing.

If you have additional questions which are not addressed here or wish to schedule an appointment, please click link below, or contact us by telephone on +852 2176 4777, by WhatsApp (+852 9547 5353) or by email at enquiries@comtois.hk.