HKSAR v. KAM KIM YUEN

HCCC 357/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 357 OF 2025

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 49.93 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 49.86 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 41.9 grammes of a solid containing 35.1 grammes of ketamine, and 0.59 grammes of a mixture containing 0.45 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

The facts which have been admitted by the defendant is that on the evening of 23 November 2023, he was seen alighting from a private car outside a metal squatter hut in Yuen Long, New Territories. He entered the squatter hut and police officers proceeded to knock on the door, but with no response, police officers then broke into the squatter hut and found the defendant inside a toilet and he was carrying a bag. The defendant was intercepted and seven keys and four mobile phones were found in the bag with five SIM cards.

A search was conducted at the squatter hut and police officers, using one of the keys found on the defendant, opened a locked room inside the hut and inside that room were found the drugs, which is the subject matter of the charge. Also found in the room were electronic scales, transparent, resealable plastic bags and also there was some plastic bags with a red line on it.

And at 9.22 pm that evening, the defendant was arrested for trafficking in a dangerous drug and under caution, the defendant said that he delivered dangerous drugs in order to earn money for purchasing dangerous drugs for his own consumption. And the keys that were found on the defendant could lock the door of the squatter hut and also the room wherein the drugs were found.

In a subsequent recorded video interview, the defendant then gave an account about how he got into this trade and he was introduced into this trade by someone called Ah Kwan, who gave him directions as to where to collect the drugs, etc. The defendant said that he never received any monetary reward but would receive dangerous drugs, mainly ‘Ice’, in lieu of payment from Ah Kwan.

He could not remember how many times he had delivered dangerous drugs for Ah Kwan nor the quantity he had delivered. He also claimed that he rented the squatter hut in December 2022 in order to run a garage, and he said he had bought the private car in January 2023 for his own use. And as he was bankrupt at the time, he registered the car in the name of his friend.

The total retail street value of the dangerous drugs was estimated to be in total about $50,307.

Ms Wu, who represents the defendant, do not take issue with the fact that the defendant has three previous convictions, one of which was possession of dangerous drugs for which he was sentenced to a drug addiction treatment centre.

Ms Wu, in her very comprehensive mitigation, sets out the background of the defendant and the defendant was born in Guangdong and came to Hong Kong in 1992. He has siblings also, and before the defendant’s arrest, he was living with his wife and stepson.

And he had done various jobs in his lifetime, and he committed the present offence due to financial difficulty. Difficulties arising from the economic downturn and his wife being pregnant at the time, and so under the marital and financial stress, he then resorted to taking dangerous drugs, and also therefore, he needed to pay for his own drug habit. And therefore, he succumbed to the temptation of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

Ms Wu also pointed out that the defendant, since his arrest, has found his faith and he has been active whilst in prison with the Christian church volunteers and pastor.

Dangerous drugs, particularly trafficking in dangerous drugs is recognised as a very serious offence. And the Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guidelines for different types of drugs, which has been correctly stated in Ms Wu’s submission. For ‘Ice’, the guideline is laid down in the case of Huang Ruifang, HKSAR v Huang Ruifang in 2025. For ketamine, there is the 2006 case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng. And for heroin hydrochloride, also in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang in 2025.

Ms Wu has also very diligently worked out the various sentencing approach and I accept Ms Wu’s recommendation that in order to achieve a realistic sentence, a combined approach in this case is suitable. So taking the combined approach and applying the ratio test, the total weight of the dangerous drug is in fact 85.41 grammes and working out the ratio test, I accept Ms Wu’s mathematical calculation that the total sentence in this case would be 9 years and 3.19 months. So after giving the one-third discount, he will get 6 years and 2.13 months.

However, he has said that some of the drugs were for his own consumption. However, Ms Wu pointed out that the defendant does not wish for a Newton hearing on the matter and will just rely on the urine test result and his previous conviction of possession of a dangerous drug, together with his admission in his record of interview.

While in this case, therefore, I am satisfied that a little portion, a small portion of the drugs were for his own consumption. And I will therefore sentence the defendant to 6 years’ imprisonment and the 2.13 months will be deducted for self‑consumption. So the defendant goes to jail for 6 years.