Case Document

100%

DCCC 653/2025

[2026] HKDC 1599

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 653 OF 2025

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

	HKSAR
	v
	TAM HO TIN

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

Before:

His Honour Judge Clement Lee in Court

Date:

27 August 2026

Present:	Ms Yasmine Zahir, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
	Mr Kevin Wong, instructed by Messrs Tang, Wong & Chow, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant

Offence:	[1] Trafficking in dangerous drugs（販運危險藥物）
	[3] Dangerous driving （危險駕駛）

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

The plea

1.The Defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to Charge 1 and Charge 3 and admitted to the relevant facts and was so convicted. The prosecution did not intend to proceed on Charge 2 and applied to put it into court file and I so ordered.

Dangerous driving (Charge 3)

2.During an anti-narcotics operation at Heng On Estate, Ma On Shan at around 2:13 am on 11 December 2024, the police in a police vehicle (bearing registration number AM 8070, the “Police Vehicle”) intercepted a private car driven by D (bearing registration number NX 79**, the “Car”) for enquiry.

3.SPC 5198 (“PW1”) alighted from the Police Vehicle and approached the Car for enquiry. PW1 opened the Car’s front passenger door, disclosed his police identity and commanded D to stop. D ignored PW1’s command and reversed the Car, during which its wide-open door hit the plastic fences and a motorbike on its nearside. Upon reaching the dead end at the refuse collection point, D drove the Car forward and made a right turn but was blocked by an emergency crash gate, D then abandoned the Car and fled on foot, leaving the Car in reverse gear with its engine running. Consequently, the Car rolled backwards and its offside rear collided with the nearside front of the Police Vehicle. The above incident was captured by the on-board camera of the Police Vehicle.

4.D was subsequently apprehended by PW1.

Trafficking in dangerous drugs (Charge 1)

5.Between around 2:21 am and 2:45 am, PC 20169 (“PW2”) searched the Car and discovered the following items[1]. In the storage compartment of the driver side door: 1 transparent plastic bag containing 9 transparent resealable plastic bags containing a total of 8.41 grammes of a solid containing 7.10 grammes of ketamine; and 1 transparent resealable plastic bag containing 7 transparent resealable plastic bags containing a total of 6.32 grammes of a solid containing 5.33 grammes of ketamine.

6.In the movable storage compartment on the right of the steering wheel: 1 transparent plastic bag containing 12 transparent resealable plastic bags containing a total of 11.5 grammes of a solid containing 10.2 grammes of cocaine; and 1 transparent plastic bag containing 26 transparent resealable plastic bags containing a total of 9.51 grammes of a solid containing 7.68 grammes of cocaine.

7.On the dashboard: HK$17,500 cash; 1 key fob of the Car; and 2 black iPhones (the “Phones”).

8.PW2 also found HK$2,210 in D’s possession.

9.The Government Chemist (“PW4”) subsequently confirmed the above narcotic.

10.The estimated street value of the dangerous drugs seized was about HK$19,110.59.

11.Based on the circumstances under which the dangerous drugs in question were seized, the packaging and quantity, the items found on D, it is to be inferred that at the material time, D unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 17.88 grammes of cocaine and 12.43 grammes of ketamine.

D’s personal background and mitigation

12.D is now 27 years of age, single with clear criminal record. He was unemployed prior to his arrest.

13.In mitigation, Mr Wong, counsel for D stressed that D entered early guilty plea. He committed the present drug offence due to financial problem. Secondly, Mr Wong cited a few cases and applied those cases into the present case, with a view to suggesting a band of sentence for drug trafficking, of which he arrived at about 5 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. Thirdly, regarding Charge 3 (dangerous driving), Mr Wong submitted that D panicked and did what any person would do-flee. But he withdrew the statement in court. He referred me to two District Court cases and urged me to adopt a starting point of 6 to 9 months and to order sentences to run concurrently.

Sentencing consideration

Charge 1

14.In respect of trafficking in cocaine and ketamine, the Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing guidelines. According to R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 and Attorney General v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342, trafficking for 17.88 grammes of cocaine may attract about 66 months’ imprisonment. On the other hand, according to Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, trafficking for 12.43 grammes of ketamine may attract about 49 months’ imprisonment.

15.As the charge is concerned with two different types of dangerous drugs with different sentencing guidelines, the court will follow the methodology as set out in HKSAR v Islam SM Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146. Considered all the circumstances, the court will adopt the combined approach.

16.On a pure mathematical calculation, the starting point for trafficking of 17.88 grammes of cocaine should be 66 months’ imprisonment. Trafficking of 12.43 grammes of ketamine may result in 49 months’ imprisonment, which is equivalent to the sentence of 7 grammes of cocaine. Adding 17.88 grammes and as if 7 grammes of cocaine together (24.88 grammes), the starting point for combined approach of Charge 1 should be 74 months’ imprisonment. After 1/3 deduction for his early guilty plea, D is sentenced to 49 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 3

17.Mr Wong seemed to have overlooked recent Court of Appeal cases. He said he knew those cases but he chose not to mention them. Further, he submitted that the sentences for drug trafficking and dangerous driving should run concurrently.

18.In HKSAR v Tang Ka Kit CACC 151/2024, the appellant also pleaded guilty to the charges of drug trafficking and dangerous driving involving fleeing situation. In upholding the sentence of 2 years (and 3 years driving disqualification) for dangerous driving, Hon Zervos JA said:

“A person who drives a vehicle dangerously in the course of committing a crime and in an effort to avoid apprehension, thereby endangering the lives of innocent road users and the police officers involved, can expect to be punished severely. The judge treated the trafficking in dangerous drugs and the dangerous driving as separate offences and did not inappropriately duplicate factors when passing sentence for each offence. There was no issue of “double counting” of aggravating factors when sentencing the applicant. It was appropriate in the circumstances that the sentences for these two offences be ordered to run consecutively.”

19.Similarly, in HKSAR v Ng Chun Ip CACC 157/2025, in upholding the starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment (and 3 years driving disqualification) for dangerous driving in fleeing situation, Hon Macrae VP said:

“The applicant’s main contention is that the sentences in this case should all have been concurrent, given that there was one incident giving rise to three offences. However, in view of the different criminality involved in the overall course of conduct, I do not think that is a realistic or reasonable argument. The dangerous driving offence was a separate offence from the offences of driving while disqualified and using a motor vehicle without third party insurance. As explained by the Court in Secretary for Justice v Chu Wing Yin Christine[2], a defendant’s culpability, albeit in the context of the offence of causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, involved two related assessments; the first being the objective dangerousness of the defendant’s driving, the second being his moral culpability. The Court said that the first “focuses more on what the driver did, the other on why he did it”[3].”

20.In the present case, no matter how Mr Wong attempted to rationalize D’s wholly irresponsible driving manner, it does not alter the fact that D’s conduct posed a high risk to road users and law enforcement agents.

21.The maximum sentence for dangerous driving is 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of level 4 ($25,000), in addition to driving disqualification on first such conviction of not less than 6 months. I have considered the above cases and the case of Chu Wing Yin Christine. The main concern of the Court is the culpability of the defendant’s dangerous driving and the seriousness of the consequences.

22.I adopt the starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment and reduce it to 12 months’ imprisonment for his guilty plea. The aggravating features include D’s conduct caused two minor collisions, slight damage to property, high risk to police officers’ safety who opened the door of D’s car[4].

Conclusion

23.By reason of the matters aforesaid, I order that both sentences to run consecutively. The total sentence is 61 months’ imprisonment.

24.The next question is the length of driving disqualification and when disqualification order should start. A recent Court of Appeal case seems to resolve long uncertainties: HKSAR v Wong Kwok Leung [2025] HKCA 450. In gist, for disqualification order under s.69(1)(a), Cap 374, i.e. any offence under this Ordinance in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle (such as breach of condition of learner’s driving licence, which is not applicable to this case), it should run from the date of conviction/sentence. To make it meaningful, the length of disqualification order is usually longer than the substantive sentence (may or may not take into account the possible remission for good behavior). For disqualification order under s.69A, Cap 374, such as dangerous driving (applicable in this case), drink driving, failing to stop/report, crossing double lines, speeding etc under Cap 375, Schedule 10, it should run until the person finishes serving the term of imprisonment or detention. Hence any disqualification order in this case should start from the date D finishes the sentence.

25.I therefore disqualify D from driving for a period of 12 months with effect from the date he finishes the sentence, in addition to driving improvement course (DIC), which is to be completed and passed 3 months before the expiry of the disqualification period.