HKSAR v. Pang Lai Chun, Patrick

Case No.HCCC 136/2023[2026] HKCFI 1942

Court

High Court CFI

Date09 Mar 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCCC 136/2023

[2026] HKCFI 1942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 136 OF 2023

-----------------

	HKSAR
	v
	Pang Lai-chun, Patrick

------------------

Before:

Hon Toh J

Date:

9 March 2026 at 10.38 am

Present:	Mr Mark Wei, on fiat, for HKSAR
	Mr Francis Cheng and Mr Joshua Choy, instructed by Kelvin Cheung & Co, for the accused

Offence:

(3) Possession of a dangerous drug (管有危險藥物)

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of dangerous drugs which was originally the 3rd count in this indictment, but because of the trial of the rape charges, the indictment was severed. He was charged on the 30th day of April 2021 at his then home in the New Territories, in Tsing Lung Tau Tsuen, Tsuen Wan, he had in his possession a dangerous drug, namely, 3.36 grammes of cannabis in herbal form.

The defendant is now aged 38 and has been in steady employment all along in the telecommunications industry. He has had no previous drug-related offence, and the one previous conviction he had was in 2010 for a driving offence.

Now, according to the Summary of Facts, the drugs were found in his premises, and he admitted under caution that they were for his self-consumption, and that he had bought it for about $700, and he would roll the cannabis with paper to make cigarettes for smoking. So, in the trial, it was the evidence of X, and the defendant did not deny that when he rolled his cigarette in the presence of X, he did offer it to X if she wanted to smoke, and she refused. So there is a slight hint of a latent risk that he may offer it to another in a totally social context.

So having considered the amount and also the slight latent‑risk factor, I would put the starting point at $12,000 fine. I would also give him the full one-third discount as I would give him the benefit of the doubt that it was his decision to plead guilty to this count at the earliest opportunity. However, according to his counsel, Mr Ngai’s affirmation, Mr Ngai had made an inadvertent error by informing the court at the earlier hearing that he was pleading not guilty. So, therefore, I will not punish him for the error of his counsel. So he will get his full one‑third discount, and I will therefore fine him $8,000.