HKSAR v. Lam Ka Ho

HCCC 67/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 67 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant pleaded guilty before Magistrate Mr. David Ko to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug[1] and was committed, on 5 February 2026, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. He confirmed his plea and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and the conviction was duly recorded.

2.Particulars of the charge are that the defendant on 3 October, 2024, outside Pak Tin Community Hall, Pak Wan Street, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 94.5 grammes of a solid containing 78.0 grammes of cocaine.

FACTS

3.At around 9:30pm on the charge date, patrolling police officers spotted the defendant standing next to the ambulance depot near Pak Tin Community Complex while looking around furtively.  Upon interception and search, a black plastic bag containing 4 re-sealable plastic bags containing the particularized cocaine were found from his left front pocket.

4.The defendant was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  Under caution, he claimed that he was trafficking in the drugs to make money to repay his gambling debts.

5.In the subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant further claimed that his friend “Ah Man” had given him the cocaine.  They came to know each other a few months ago through a former colleague.  “Ah Man” knew about the defendant’s debts and suggested that the defendant could traffic in drugs for money.  

6.On the day of the defendant’s arrest, the defendant met up with “Ah Man” in Sham Shui Po and took over from him the black plastic bag with the drugs inside.  The defendant knew it was cocaine, and that he was to await further instructions.  “Ah Man” promised the defendant $2,000 once the drugs had been delivered.  

7.The estimated street value of the seized cocaine was around $80,798.

8.By his admission to the Summary of Facts, the defendant had accepted that he had, at all material times, knowingly possessed all the dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawfully trafficking.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

9.The defendant has one spent previous conviction for gambling in a place not being a gambling establishment, for which he was fined $500.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

10.The defendant was born in Chinese mainland in November 1995 and is now 30.  He was educated in Hong Kong up to Form 2 level, and had previously worked as a casual warehouse assistant earning around $10,000 a month.  He had been unemployed since October 2023.

11.The defendant resided with his parents at a public housing unit.  His father is 59 and a construction site worker, while his mother, aged 51, works as a security guard.

12.The defendant wrote to express his remorse and being ashamed towards his parents for what he has done, and wishes for leniency so that he may return to their side as soon as possible, and try to be a better son.  

13.Ms. Lisa Remedios, counsel for the defendant, submits that the defendant has been cooperative with the police, frankly admitting to his wrongdoings.  There is no evidence that he was anything more than a mere courier of the drugs, which were given to him by ‘Ah Man’, who promised $2,000 for their delivery.  

SENTENCING

14.The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is life imprisonment and a $5 million fine.  

15.The sentencing approach laid down in Herry Jane Yusuph[2], together with the updated sentencing guidelines in Huang Ruifang[3] are applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff bands

16.For 78 grammes of cocaine, the applicable guideline tariff band is “8 to 12 years’ imprisonment”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

17.The defendant was acting as a courier.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

18.An arithmetical application of the guideline tariff leads to a notional starting point of 8 years 9 months’ imprisonment.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

19.There are no aggravating factors that would require an enhancement in sentence.  

Step 5: Mitigating factors

20.The only mitigating factor is the defendant’s timely plea of guilty, for which he is granted the full one-third discount, resulting in a sentence of 5 years 10 months.  

Step 6: Totality

21.Taking a step back, I find this sentence fair, just and balanced in the circumstances.  

FINAL SENTENCE

22.The defendant is, therefore, sentenced to 5 years 10 months’ imprisonment after plea.

Mr. Brian Cheng, SPP (Ag.)  of Department of Justice, for the Prosecution/ HKSAR

Ms. Lisa Remedios, instructed by Messrs. Fan Wong & Tso, assigned by D.L.A. for the defendant