Case Document

100%

HCCC 252/2024
HCCC 253/2024
(Heard together)

[2026] HKCFI 4323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 252 OF 2024

________________________

	HKSAR
	v
	LAU KAI-MAN	Accused

________________________

AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 253 OF 2024

________________________

	HKSAR
	v
	CHAN LOK-HIM	Accused

________________________

Before:

Hon Wilson Chan J in Court

Date of Hearing:	18 June 2026
Date of Sentence:	18 June 2026

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.On 5 August 2024, the defendant in HCCC 253/2024 (“Mr Chan”) pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, Mr Chan confirmed his plea and his agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.On 18 May 2026, the defendant in HCCC 252/2024 (“Mr Lau”) was found guilty after trial by the jury of the same charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

3.The particulars of the charge state that on 23 September 2022, at Mini Storage Room B32, Unit B, 5^th Floor, Tsuen Wan Industrial Building, Nos. 59-71 Wang Lung Street, Tsuen Wan, New Territories in Hong Kong, Mr Chan, together with Mr Lau, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, mainly 405.4 grammes of a solid containing 333.2 grammes of cocaine and 7,371 grammes of cannabis in herbal form.

4.Regarding the personal background of Mr Chan, he was born in Hong Kong on 15 August 2002. He is currently aged 23. He is single. He has received education up to Secondary Form 3 level. Prior to his arrest, he worked as a construction worker and his father works as a driver and his mother is a housewife.

5.I am told that the defendant is the only child of his parents. They had divorced before the defendant turned one and the defendant’s custody was granted to the father. His paternal grandparents have assisted the father in taking care of the defendant throughout his upbringing.

6.The defendant was educated locally. He completed Secondary Form 3 at the age of 15. He quitted school thereafter to join the workforce by first working in a restaurant. Later he changed to work as a delivery attendant, air-conditioning technician, and in the construction field.

7.In 2019, the defendant was convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs for helping a primary schoolmate to make delivery. For that offence, Mr Chan was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. Upon discharge from the Pik Uk Correctional Institution on 16 October 2021, Mr Chan resumed working as an air-conditioning technician. He also undertook interior decoration and construction work.

8.It is significant to note that Mr Chan committed the present offence in September 2022, which was less than one year after his release from his previous sentence for the similar offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

9.I am told that during 2021 and 2022, Mr Chan was unable to find sufficient job orders to maintain a steady earning and when asked by one of his secondary schoolmates to help, Mr Chan foolishly agreed to store some drugs and to make delivery as directed by the school friend for making quick money.

10.Regarding the personal background of Mr Lau, this background in fact emerged from the evidence he gave at the trial. He was born in Hong Kong and received education up to Secondary Form 6 level. Then he received further studies after that but did not complete the course. After completing Secondary Form 6, Mr Lau helped out in a restaurant which was run by his parents. It was a family business. After his arrest in this case in 2022 when he was granted bail, Mr Lau began studying again, studying for a foundation diploma at IVE in the subject of health and life science. I was told that at the time of the trial, the defendant was still a full-time student studying there.

11.Mr Lau has one previous conviction for attempted fraud. That was recorded on 25 April 2025 and for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 months and received a fine of $1,500.

12.The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186. The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band (or bracket) applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence before the court. The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes. It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant. The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence of the trial”. The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”. The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just, and balanced sentence”.

13.Regarding the first step, the task is to identify the appropriate range applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. In HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the guideline for a quantity of 333.2 grammes of cocaine is 13 years and 9.3 months’ imprisonment as the starting point. According to HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329, the guideline for a quantity of 7,371 grammes of herbal cannabis is 3 years and 5.4 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.

14.As two different kinds of dangerous drugs were involved, and in order to assist me in identifying the starting point of the offence, I have considered using the three tests in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013 (Judgment dated 8 April 2014) as cross-check, and as recently explained by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885.

15.However, due to the vast disparity in the quantities and sentencing scales of cocaine and herbal cannabis in the present case, the “Absurdity Test” and the “Ratio Test” do not yield any meaningful results even for the purpose of cross-checking, whilst the “Conversion Test” gives rise to a result of around 13 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

16.Having considered the above matters in the round, and taking into account that more than one type of dangerous drug is involved, I consider that the starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate in the present case. That is purely based on the quantity and types of drugs involved, before any consideration of the defendants’ role in the offence.

17.Second, concerning Mr Chan’s and Mr Lau’s role and culpability, from the Summary of Facts admitted by Mr Chan and the facts emerged at the trial of Mr Lau, I accept that both Mr Chan and Mr Lau were couriers or storekeepers of the drugs.

18.Third, in view of my aforesaid finding of Mr Chan’s and Mr Lau’s role and culpability, I consider that 14 years’ imprisonment would be the appropriate notional sentence after trial for the offence in question.

19.Regarding Step 4, I am required to consider any aggravating features which would go to enhance the notional sentence after trial identified under Step 3 above.

20.In respect of Mr Chan, there is one such aggravating feature in the present case. This concerns Mr Chan’s previous conviction for the similar offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs. This is an accepted factor justifying an enhancement of sentence under Step 4. For this, I will enhance the sentence of Mr Chan by 6 months’ imprisonment. This would take the notional sentence after trial in his case to 14 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

21.As for Mr Lau, I consider that there is no aggravating factor which would enhance the notional sentence after trial.

22.Fifth, as for Mr Chan, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the sentence is his timely guilty plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount. Accordingly, Mr Chan’s sentence is reduced to 9 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

23.As for Mr Lau, I consider that there is no mitigating factor which may reduce his sentence. Accordingly, the sentence of Mr Lau remains at 14 years’ imprisonment.

24.Finally, I consider that the respective sentences of 9 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for Mr Chan and 14 years’ imprisonment for Mr Lau are fair, just, and balanced sentences in all the circumstances of these cases and in the circumstances of the two defendants.