HKSAR v. Law Lok Hang

HCCC 209/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 209 OF 2026

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.The defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug[1] and was committed, on 8 June 2026, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The defendant confirmed his plea and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and his conviction was duly recorded.

2.The particulars of the charge are that the defendant, on 10 August 2024, at Flat F, 17th Floor, Tower 6, The Sherwood, No. 8 Fuk Hang Tsuen Road, Lam Tei, Tuen Mun, New Territories, in Hong Kong (hereinafter “the Flat”), unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 204.13 kg of a solid containing 172.02 kg of cocaine

FACTS

3.The facts admitted can be summarized as follows.

4.On 10 Augst 2024, the Defendant was intercepted at the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point upon his return to Hong Kong from the Mainland as he was on the Immigration Watchlist.  He was arrested and cautioned for the offence of "Trafficking in a dangerous drug" under which he admitted that he assisted in delivering drugs and guarding a drug cache in order toearn money because of his indebtedness.  He then disclosed the address of the Flat being the drug cache.

5.At about 6:59 p.m. on the same day, the Defendant was escorted to the Flat for investigation.  Upon forcible entry into the Flat, the police conducted a search therein under a search warrant.  In the Flat, the police found:-

(a) 89 blocks of suspected cocaine with the word "Lucky" printed on each of its packaging;

(b) 40 blocks of suspected cocaine with a logo of "spider" printed on each its packaging;

(c) 40 blocks of suspected cocaine with a logo of "eagle" printed on each of its packaging; and

(d) 35 blocks of suspected cocaine with a logo of "dog" printed on each of its packaging.

6.All the suspected dangerous drugs seized in the Flat were confirmed to be a total of 204 packets (each consisting of plastic wrappings and in the form of a block) containing a total of 204.13 kg of a solid containing 172.02 kg of cocaine.   The Defendant was further cautioned for “Trafficking in a dangerous drug" in respect of all the drugs found in the Flat.  Under caution, he admitted that he assisted in guarding those “coke”.

7.In the subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that:-

(a) About two months ago, he lost a lot of money in gambling and went to a bar in Tuen Mun for drinks where he met a Chinese male known as "Ah Lung".

(b) Ah Lung learnt that he was in debt and asked him if he would be interested to earn quick money.

(c) Ah Lung offered him HK$30,000 as a reward for drug trafficking.

(d) In about mid-July 2024, Ah Lung instructed him to look for a unit for storing drugs and to deliver drugs occasionally.

(e) He therefore searched for a unit online and subsequently rented the Flat under his name at a monthly rent of HK$10,500 in mid-July 2024.

(f) A few days later, Ah Lung informed him that drugs would be delivered to the Flat.

(g) Thereafter, in the small hours on an unknownday in late July 2024, he received a call from an unknown male asking him to board a light goods vehicle outside The Sherwood. He together with that male moved about 10 odd red-white-blue nylon bags (which contained drugs) to the Flat using a trolley.

(h) A few days later, he received further instructions from Ah Lung to take over an unattended 7-seater vehicle in Tsing Yi in the morning and to take two suitcases containing drugs to a designated location. He then went to the Flat and packed as many packets of drugs as he could into two suitcases. He could not tell how many packets of drugs were packed but probably about 10 odd blocks of drugs. He then drove the 7-seater vehicle to deliver the drugs to an observatory of Ting Kau Bridge. He left the two suitcases containing drugs unattended next to a rubbish bin thereat.

(i) About 3 to 4 days later, he received instructions from Ah Lung again to deliver drugs to the observatory of Ting Kau Bridge. He therefore went to the Flat again and took two nylon bags which contained about 30 blocks of drugs and drove the 7-seater vehicle to the observatory of Ting Kau Bridge. Like the previous occasion, he left the two nylon bags next to a rubbish bin thereat.

(j) Since then, he did not receive any further instructions from Ah Lung. Nor did he return to the Flat.

(k) Only he had the keys to the Flat. But he was instructed to leave them together with the drugs at the observatory of Ting Kau Bridge upon the last delivery.

(l) He refused to provide passwords of the two mobile phones seized from him for investigation.

(m) He has lost the mobile phone that was used for communicating with Ah Lung.

(n) He had not received any rewards from Ah Lung yet.

(o) He trafficked in drugs because of financial difficulty. He knew that it was illegal for trafficking in dangerous drugs.

8.The CCTV record of the Sherwood captured the Defendant’s movements on 20-23, and 28 July 2024 and were consistent with his admissions of moving drugs. 

9.Three fingerprints were lifted from the mirror surface in the bathroom of the Flat and were found to be the Defendant's right palm, right middle finger and right forefinger respectively.

10.The 10 blocks of cocaine with the “eagle logo” and the two cigarette ends seized from the Flat had the Defendant's DNA.

11.The Defendant was the tenant of the Flat for a two-year tenancy commencing from 25 July 2024 at a monthly rent of HK$10,500.

12.The estimated street value of all the cocaine seized was about HK$145,952,950 (in powder form) or HK$213,724,110 (in crack form).

13.The Defendant now admits and accepts that at the material time he unlawfully trafficked in all the dangerous drugs seized.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

14.The defendant has one previous conviction in Hong Kong for trafficking in dangerous drugs for which he was sentenced to 6 years and 5 months imprisonment on 4 May 2020.  Therefore, he committed the present offence only slightly more than a year he was released from prison for his last drug trafficking offence.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

15.Mr. William Allan, counsel for the Defendant, provided the Court with written submissions for mitigation.

16.In summary, the Defendant is now 30 years old, he was born in Hong Kong in 1996 and was educated up to Form 4.  While he was imprisoned for his last offence, he joined various courses to obtain certificates to educate himself.  In particular, it was submitted that he had used the time to study for a diploma and higher education, this is shown by his diploma in human resources.

17.He used to work as a waiter earning about HK$16,000 – HK$17,000 per month.  The Court is told that he suffers from mental illness, in particular severe depression for which he is receiving treatment at the Eastern Hospital.

18.He has a brother and sister.  His mother is a housewife and his father is a crane operator earning about HK$50,000 a month. 

19.The fact that he has a very supportive and loving family is shown by the mitigation letters submitted to the Court and the fact that various members of his family attended the hearing to supporting him.

20.He committed the present offence for quick money.

21.The mitigation letters submitted to the Court have also been carefully considered.

SENTENCING

22.Drug trafficking is a very serious offence.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment is life imprisonment and a fine of HK$5 million.

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

23.The 6-step sentencing approach introduced by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[2], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[3], are applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff band

24.Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question.

25.This case concerns a huge quantity of cocaine.  For 172.02 kilogrammes of cocaine, the sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 for cocaine are applied and it would fall under the highest band of “above 30,000g” for which the sentence would fall within the discretion of judges “bearing in mind the practical and realistic ceiling of 35 years' imprisonment and the legislative maximum of life imprisonment for cases of truly exceptional gravity” (see HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777).

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

26.The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant.  

27.The facts admitted in this case show that the Defendant’s role is slightly more culpable than a mere courier as he rented a flat for the sole purpose of trafficking in a huge amount of cocaine.  

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

28.As noted above, this case falls into the highest band of the guidelines.  The band one level below this band is for “15,000 - 30,000 g” of cocaine which attracts  “27 to 30 years” imprisonment.

29.This case concerns 172.02 kilogrammes of cocaine, which is more than 5 times the quantity of the highest band reserved for “above 30kg”.

30.I bear in mind the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa (supra).:-

25. In the recent case of Cheng Chi Wai, a different division of this Court conducted an examination of sentences passed in cases of trafficking in very large quantities of dangerous drugs and found that “even if the quantity of drugs involved was massive, the starting point never exceeded 35 years”. The Court made reference to Ng Muk Kam, where the trial judge’s attempt to impose a sentence of life imprisonment on a defendant involved “in a major way” (albeit not the mastermind or chief financier) in trafficking in 306 kilogrammes of salts of esters of morphine, with a street value of some HK$146 million, was varied by the Court of Appeal to 35 years’ imprisonment. The Court also noted another case, in which the appeal had not yet been determined at the time Cheng Chi Wai was heard, where the defendant had been sentenced after trial to 37 years’ imprisonment for organising the trafficking of 34 kilogrammes of “Ice” across the border by sea into Hong Kong. This Court in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho has since heard and determined that appeal and reduced the sentence to 33 years’ imprisonment, albeit using 31 years’ imprisonment as its base starting point before the addition of aggravating features.

26. Given the remarks of the Court in Cheng Chi Wai in 2021, which have been confirmed by subsequent research on the subject conducted by the respondent in Lee Ming Ho in 2023 and by Ms Lo herself in the present case [i.e. the prosecutor in that case], we think we should state that realistically and for all practical purposes, there is a prevailing sentencing limit for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, which is 35 years’ imprisonment after trial. We would not be prepared to say that a sentence must never exceed such a figure: if we did, we might quickly regret doing so, and we must always acknowledge that the maximum sentence for the offence prescribed by the legislature is life imprisonment. Factors such as the sheer enormity of the quantity of dangerous drugs concerned, the very high position of the defendant responsible for the offence and its financing, the defendant’s antecedents, as well as other relevant factors aggravating the offence, may cause judges in the future to look beyond that limit. However, such exceptional circumstances apart, it is the experience of the courts of this jurisdiction in sentencing under the various guidelines, which have existed for trafficking in dangerous drugs over more than four decades, that 35 years imprisonment after trial is in reality likely to be the longest sentence that will be approved by this Court.”

31.In Huang Ruifang (supra) the Court of Appeal held at §62 in relation to the sentencing guidelines for cocaine, that:-

“Above 30,000 grammes, sentences will fall within the discretion of judges bearing in mind the practical and realistic ceiling of 35 years' imprisonment, as established in Sum Ka Wa, and the legislative maximum of life imprisonment for cases of truly exceptional gravity.”

32.In determining the appropriate overall starting point, I must also take into consideration the role and the culpability of the defendant.  His role is slightly more culpable than a mere courier or mere storekeeper, I shall therefore adopt 32 years imprisonment as the notional sentence after trial as starting point at this step.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

33.As stated above, the previous conviction of the Defendant was for drug trafficking for which he was sentenced to 6 years 5 months’ imprisonment on 4 May 2020.  The Court was informed that the Defendant was released from jail for that offence on 30 June 2023.  Given the temporal proximity of the present drug trafficking offence and his previous drug trafficking conviction, this is an aggravating factor which the Court should take into account in sentencing, notwithstanding the already lengthy sentence of 32 years as the starting point at step 3 above.

34.As explained by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Chau Hon-kwong [2011] 1 HKLRD 630 at §33, even a single previous instance of similar offending may be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing.  The Court cited HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas [2009] HKC 197 §32:

“There are a number of factors that must give aggravation of [the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs] including... the fact that the trafficker has engaged in trafficking on a previous occasion.”

and §35:

“In this regard, it is necessary to address the extent to which aggravating circumstances should lead to enhanced sentences in order to reflect the general policy of the courts to impose greater sentences on those... who have trafficked in dangerous drugs on a previous occasion...”

35.In Chau Hon-kwong (supra)§35 the Court of Appeal agreed with the sentencing judge on the need for enhancement as a matter of principle but reduced the extent of enhancement from 2 years to 1 year from the 15 years starting point.  In doing so, the Court held:-

“The express reason which the judge gave for enhancing the sentence was the proximity of the commission of this, third, drugs offence to the release of the applicant from a substantial period of imprisonment for an identical offence. It demonstrated the lack of impact which two periods of imprisonment for similar conduct in fact had on the applicant. It demonstrated remorselessness on the part of the applicant. It demonstrated the lack of deterrent effect which periods of imprisonment have on the applicant.”

36.The same reasoning applies to this Defendant.  The proximity of the commission of the present offence to the release of the defendant from a substantial period of imprisonment for an identical offence, demonstrates the lack of impact which the previous imprisonment for similar conduct in fact had on the defendant. It also demonstrates remorselessness on the part of the defendant and the lack of deterrent effect which the previous period of imprisonment had on him.

37.Therefore, I shall enhance the sentence by 1 year from the notional starting point, resulting in an overall starting point of 33 years’ imprisonment at this step. 

38.In doing so, I have borne in mind the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lam San Yau [2026] 1 HKLRD 721 at paras 21-22 (said in the context of enhancement of sentence by reason of prior convictions) that enhancement of sentence “needs to be balanced against the comparative seriousness” of the offence, be reasonably proportionate to the basic sentence and not be excessive. 

Step 5: Mitigating factors

39.I have considered the mitigation advanced on behalf of the Defendant together with the mitigation letters.

40.Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the only strong mitigating factor is the defendant’s guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the sentence down to 22 years’ imprisonment.

41.I also accept Mr. Allan’s submission that the Defendant in this case has shown greater remorse by actively providing the address of the Flat to the police, knowing that it contains a huge amount of drugs.  As recognised by the Court, the fact that but for the admission of the defendant, the Prosecution may not have known the existence, details or the extent of the drug related offence is a mitigating factor which the Court may take into account.  This is most prominent in “conspiracy to traffic” cases.

42.For example in HKSAR v Yung Chi-hang [2026] HKCFI 489 a further 5% discount was given for this factor; in HKSAR v Gong Jiaming [2023] HKCFI 3132 and HKSAR v Siu Lap-fung [2023] HKCFI 791 – a further discount resulting in a total of 38.5% discount including guilty plea was given.  In HKSAR v Wong Tsz-hin [2026] HKCFI 3289 (although dealing with a conspiracy to manufacture drugs) a further 16 months discount was given in addition to the 1/3 reduction for guilty plea.  In HKSAR v Tong Ho-wan [2025] HKCFI 1033 the starting point was adjusted downwards to take into account this factor.

43.The defendant in this case gave quite a detailed account of his involvement and the quantity of drugs involved. It is not a case where without his confession there is no evidence to reveal this offence.  But that said, the extent of the operation, the number of persons involved, and some of the details may not have been known but for his admissions.  For this factor, I shall give a further 6 months reduction to the sentence, resulting in 21 years and 6 months imprisonment.

Step 6: Totality

44.In my judgment, this is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the offence and offender for the reasons stated above.

FINAL SENTENCE

45.Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 21 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

Ms LAU Lee Lan, Margaret, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Mr Allan, William instructed by Mohnani & Associates, for the Defendant