HKSAR v. Wong Yuk Lai

DCCC 658/2025

[2026] HKDC 874

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 658 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to 3 charges:-

Charge 1 - Trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely:

(i) 12.17 grammes of a solid containing 10.1 grammes of cocaine;

(ii) 67 millilitres of a liquid containing 0.08 gramme of a solid upon drying containing cocaine;

(iii) 58 millilitres of a liquid containing traces of cocaine;

(iv) 40 tablets containing 0.54 gramme of midazolam;

(v) 0.68 gramme of a solid containing 0.58 gramme of ketamine;

(vi) 14.0 grammes of a solid containing 10.9 grammes of heroin hydrochloride;

(vii) 41 millilitres of a liquid containing 0.11 gramme of a solid upon drying containing methamphetamine;

Charge 2 - Keeping a divan

Charge 3 - Possession of poisons included in Part 1 of the Poisons List.

(i) 1.69 grammes of a liquid containing nicotine;

(ii) 0.08 grammes of liquid containing etomidate

Summary of facts

2.At about 5:51 pm on 10 October 2024, the police executed a search warrant and raided a flat in Yuen Long, New Territories, Hong Kong.

3.Inside the flat, apart from the dangerous drugs as stated in Charge 1, there were also other items being found, including tinfoil, digital scales, plastic bottles with tubes, sealing machine, lighters, notebook, iPhone, and glass bottles containing ice and cocaine.

4.At various spots in the flat, there were 10 tables and 23 chairs.

5.On the wall of the flat, there was a price list for various types of dangerous drugs.  The street value of the drugs seized would be as follow:-

(i) Cocaine HK$14,872

(ii) Midazolam HK$2,000

(iii) Ketamine HK$315

(iv) Heroin HK$7,686

(v) Methamphetamine HK$61

6.The police also found 2 e-cigarette cartridges containing a total of 1.69 grammes of a liquid containing nicotine in defendant’s recycling bag, and 1 e-cigarette with a cartridge containing 0.08 grammes of a liquid containing etomidate in the right front pocket of her trousers.

7.The defendant was arrested and under caution she admitted that she was the keeper of the divan which she has been operated since the beginning of September 2024 with a daily wages of HK$2,000.

8.The boss of the divan was Ah Ming who would supplied dangerous drugs for the defendant to sell and drug consumption paraphernaila to the customers. The defendant would make a record of the sale of the dangerous drugs in the notebook.  

9.Ah Ming would inform the defendant whenever a customer would come to the divan, but the defendant did not know how payment would be made by the customers.

Criminal record

10.Since 1997 to 2023, the defendant has 8 court appearances with 8 conviction records, they were mainly of 2 types of offences, possession of dangerous drugs and gambling offences.

11.The defendant was last discharged from prison in April 2024.  6 months later, she committed the present offence.

Background of the defendant

12.The defendant is 50 years of age and is still single. The defendant has lost contact with her family for a long time, since she was 18 years old.

Sentence

13.In the present case, there were 5 types of different dangerous drugs involved:-

(i) the total quantity of cocaine/ heroin is 21.08 grammes;

(ii) 0.11 gramme of ice;

(iii) 0.58 gramme of ketamine;

(iv) 0.54 gramme of midazolam.

14.Among the 5 types of dangerous drugs, midazolam has a very small portion, therefore it has an insignificant bearing in the outcome of the sentence. As such it should be ignored in order to achieve a fair calculation of sentence.

15.As to ketamine, it has a quantity of 0.58 gramme, according to the sentencing guideline in S for J v Hii Siew Cheng[1] up to 1 g , it is within the court’s discretion to impose a sentence on the defendant. According to the decision of HKSAR v Lui Cheung Chi[2] that in view of the small quantity of ketamine, in approaching the sentence of the defendant in charge 1, I should also ignore the quantity of ketamine.

16.The remaining 3 types of drugs, 2 of them are cocaine and heroin and they can be grouped together, while ice is the most potent drug among the 3 of them. However, it only accounts for a very low percentage (0.11 gramme) of the total quantity of the drugs being seized.

17.On the other hand, according to HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei[3], it said that

“the difference in potency between ICE and heroin and cocaine is not so great to, justify, in the circumstances, the use of ICE tariff instead of heroin/cocaine tariff.”

18.As such, the quantity of 0.11 gramme of ice should be aggragated into the total quantity of cocaine/heroin, being 21.08 grammes and to use cocaine/heroin tariff for sentencing in charge 1. It arrives at a total of 21.19 grammes.

19.According to the sentencing guideline of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang[4], 21.19 grammes of narcotic content falls into the sentencing bracket of 5 to 8 years imprisonment.  It attracts a sentence of 5 years and 10 months (70 months).

20.According to the case of Herry Jane Yusuph[5] I also need to consider the defendant’s role and culpability. It is clear from the admission of the defendant that she was inside the premises to sell drugs to make an earning. Her role was not a mere store keeper,  as the defence agreed that she was in fact a direct drug trafficker.

21.Therefore, the notional starting point should be enhanced by 6 months.

22.The defence also agrees that there are aggravating factors in the present case:-

(a) The defendant was trafficking in a variety of drugs that she was able to cater to a far wider market than in only one type of drug.

(b) The defendant committed the present offence 6 months after her discharge from prison and she has numerous criminal records, according to the case HKSAR v Yu Chi Chiu[6]:-

˹ In the case that both factors exist and as far as enhancing sentencing starting point is concerned, the factor of reoffending shortly after release is no different from that of having multiple similar convictions in the past. The former is at most proof of the latter. ˼

23.To this end, I enhance the sentence by another 6 months.

24.The total sentence of charge 1 arrives at 82 (70 + 6 + 6) months. Given 1/3 discount, it comes down to 54.7 months. I round down to 54 months.  

Charge 2 - Keeping a divan

25.According to section 35(1)(a) and (2) of Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, the maximum sentence is 15 years imprisonment.

26.When the defendant was arrested for the present offence, she admitted that “being the keeper of the divan which operated to sell dangerous drugs 24 hours a day.” 

27.In mitigation, the defence said that the defendant also taking lodging in the premises.

28.The defendant further admitted that she was paid HK$2,000 a day to keep the divan for 6 weeks, to sell dangerous drugs to the customers, to provide a place and paraphernalia for them to consume dangerous drugs. There was also price list on the wall.  At the time of arrest, the defendant was with 2 customers outside the entrance of the flat with intend to let them into the flat to consume drugs.

29.As the defendant was a drug addict, her wages would be fully deducted for consumption of drugs.

30.The premises was about 200 to 300 feet with an open place setting without partition of rooms, there were 10 tables and 23 chairs and numerous lighters for the customers to use.

31.The defence referred to a case of HKSAR v Lam Lai Chu Patsy[7] of which it stated that without laying a guideline that the customary sentence ranged from 12 to 24 months.

32.With all the information in mind, I take 2 years as the starting point, reduce to 16 months after 1/3 discount.

Charge 3 - Possession of poisons included in Part 1 of the Poisons List

33.In this charge, both the 1.69 grammes of a liquid containing nicotine and 0.08 gramme of liquid containing etomidate were for the defendant’s own consumption.

34.In view of the quantity involved, I consider that a fine of HK$1,000 is sufficient for the purpose of passing a sentence on the defendant.  The defence said that the defendant has over HK$1,000 in her prisoner’s property.  I order the defendant to use that money to pay for the fine today, otherwise the defendant is ordered to serve a period of 7 days’ imprisonment consecutive to the total sentence of charges 1 and 2. 

Totality

35.As charges 1 and 2 were separate and distinct offences and warranted wholly consecutive sentences, but taking into account of the totality principle, I ordered 8 months from charge 2 to run consecutively to charge 1 (HKSAR v Wong Chi Ying[8] para 8 refers).

36.The total sentence arrives at 62 months.