HKSAR v. Lau Chun Kwok

CACC 244/2025 , [2026] HKCA 1629

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 3312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 244 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 35 OF 2022)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Macrae VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.The appellant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to a single charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 702 grammes of a mixture containing 624 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  He was committed to the High Court for sentence and, on 3 October 2022, sentenced by D’Almada Remedios J (“the judge”) to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.  With leave granted by the Single Judge[1] on the papers on 9 July 2026 for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence and for leave to appeal, the appellant appeals against his sentence.

Facts

2.On 30 September 2020, at 3:35 pm, the appellant was intercepted by patrolling police officers at the junction of Shanghai Street and Pitt Street, in Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, where he appeared to be acting furtively.  He told the police officers when asked that he was “delivering thing(s) for others”.  The police officers then searched the bag carried by him and discovered a mooncake box containing a plastic bag, with the number 712.7 written on it and dangerous drugs inside.  Cash of HK$940 and a mobile telephone were also found on the appellant. 

3.In his subsequent video-recorded interview, the appellant admitted that, earlier that day at 3 am, a man called “Ah Bun”, whom he knew from his previous purchases, invited him to deliver the bag of drugs to Sham Shui Po for a reward of HK$2,000.  He claimed that he knew the bag contained a dangerous drug but was not sure of the exact type.

4.The dangerous drugs in question had a value of HK$1,053,702 and were admitted by the appellant to be for the purpose of trafficking.

Sentencing

5.The appellant was 43 years of age at the time of sentence.  He had 17 previous convictions, including possession of dangerous drugs or drug equipment, but not trafficking, in 1996, 2008, 2009, 2013 and 2018 respectively.  He was last discharged from the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre in October 2018[2].  He used to be a delivery worker but has remained jobless since 2019 or 2020 when he was divorced.  He submitted a mitigation letter, in which he claimed he had been a drug addict for more than 20 years[3].

6.By reference to the guidelines prevailing at the time of sentence, as set out in HKSAR v Abdallah[4], the judge held that 624 grammes of heroin narcotic fell within the band of 600 to 1,200 grammes and the sentencing range of 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment.  Accordingly, the judge adopted an arithmetic starting point of 20 years’ imprisonment.  

7.The judge found the appellant to be a courier[5].  She gave him a one-third discount for his timely plea, reducing the sentence to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment[6].

Ground of appeal

8.Mr Fong, for the appellant, has advanced a sole ground of appeal, which avers that the appellant is entitled to benefit from the revised guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3)[7] and a consequent reduction in sentence.

The respondent’s submissions

9.Mr Cheng, for the respondent, does not oppose the appeal.  He submits that, under the revised guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3), the appropriate starting point for trafficking in 624 grammes of heroin narcotic would be 16 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, and he accepts that there are no aggravating features.  He submits that, treating the appellant as a courier, and after allowing a one-third discount for his plea, the resultant sentence would be 11 years’ imprisonment.

Discussion

10.Having been granted leave to appeal against sentence out of time, the appellant has thereby been brought back into the appeal system.  Since he was sentenced after 18 September 2018 at a time when the “state of affairs” led to the subsequent revision of the guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3)[8], we are satisfied that he should be entitled to benefit from the revised guidelines.

11.Had the appellant been sentenced under the revised guidelines, the starting point on an arithmetical basis, assuming that his role was a mere courier, would have been about 16 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, instead of 20 years’ imprisonment under the previous guidelines.  We accept there is nothing on the facts to suggest the appellant was any more than a courier, and there are no other relevant aggravating factors in his case.  Applying a one-third discount for his plea, the sentence on the appellant thus becomes 11 years’ imprisonment.  

12.Accordingly, we reduce the appellant’s sentence from 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment to 11 years’ imprisonment.  The appeal is allowed to that extent.

Mr Herbert Cheng SPP (Ag), of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Mr Stephen Fong, instructed by Chiu, Szeto & Cheng Solicitors, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Appellant

[1]  Macrae VP.

[2]  Appeal Bundle (“AB”), p 7I-J.

[3]  AB, p 7R.

[4]  HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437.

[5]  AB, p 8A-B.

[6]  AB, p 8J-K.

[7]  HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

[8]  SeeHKSAR v Lam Man Tak [2026] 2 HKLRD 199.