HKSAR v. LAU TING FAI

CACC 174/2025 [2026] HKCA 1644

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 3197

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 174 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 384 OF 2023)

_______________

_______________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Zervos JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 191 grammes of a solid containing 160 grammes of cocaine (Count 1), and 970.3 grammes of a solid containing 768.14 grammes of cocaine (Count 2), contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  On 27 August 2024, he was committed to the High Court for sentence; having confirmed his plea, was sentenced by Recorder Derek Chan SC (“the judge”) to 14 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. 

2.  Following the grant of an extension of time to appeal and leave to appeal by a Single Judge[1] on 8 January 2026, the appellant now appeals against his sentence.

The brief facts  

3.  At about 12:40 pm on 10 June 2022, in the course of an anti-narcotics operation conducted by police officers on the 9/F, Luk Tin House, Yan Tin Estate, No 39 Tsing Lun Road, Tuen Mun, the appellant was observed walking out of Room 914 towards the 9/F lift lobby while carrying a white paper bag in his left hand.  He was then intercepted outside Room 908, followed by a search, during which the following items were found in his possession:

(a)  A “Chanel” paper bag inside which was a black box consisting of 8 transparent plastic bags containing 191 grammes of a solid containing 160 grammes of cocaine[2] (which constituted the subject matter of Count 1);

(b)  Two iPhones;

(c)  A key to Room 914; and

(d)  Cash of HK$500.

4.  Upon his arrest and caution, the appellant said that he wanted to earn some money and, for that purpose, he delivered the dangerous drugs to others.  With the key in the appellant’s possession, police officers gained entry to Room 914 and conducted a search of the premises.  They found inside the right compartment of a hanging cupboard over the refrigerator near the door:

(a)  A vacuum sealing machine;

(b)  A plastic container in which there were:

(i)  Two electronic scales;

(ii)  Approximately 300 unused small resealable bags;

(iii)  12 transparent plastic bags with 469 grammes of a solid containing 388 grammes of cocaine;

(c)  Another plastic container in which there were:

(i)  A transparent plastic bag with 491 grammes of a solid containing 371 grammes of cocaine;

(ii)  A plastic bag containing 982 grammes of a solid containing phenacetin[3];

(iii)  Two plastic bags containing 1,000 grammes of a solid containing phenacetin;

(iv)  A plastic container with 10.3 grammes of a solid containing 9.14 grammes of cocaine; and

(v)  A calculator.

5.  At 1:03 pm, when the appellant was arrested and cautioned again regarding the dangerous drugs and other items found in Room 914 (Count 2), he stated that someone had told him to store the dangerous drugs at his home, to wait for instructions, and deliver the dangerous drugs to others.

6.  The appellant accepted that he knowingly trafficked in the cocaine in question, the value of which was agreed to be HK$970,847 in powder form, or HK$1,459,754 in crack form.

The sentence

7.  The appellant was 42 years old and had a clear record at the time of sentence.

8.  The judge adopted a combined approach[4], by which the quantity of the dangerous drugs in the two counts was treated together for sentencing purposes.  By reference to the guidelines prevailing at the time of sentence, as set out in HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas[5], the judge held that 928.14 grammes of cocaine narcotic fell within the band of 600 to 1,200 grammes and thus attracted a sentencing range of 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment.  Based on an arithmetic calculation, the judge adopted a starting point of 21 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.  He considered that the appellant was an ordinary courier and did not enhance the starting point on the basis of his role and culpability.  He gave the appellant a one-third discount for his guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 14 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.  

The ground of appeal

9.  Mr Simon So, with him Mr Marco Poon, for the appellant, has advanced a single ground of appeal contending that the appellant is entitled to benefit from a lower starting point in accordance with the revised guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3)[6].

The respondent’s submissions

10.  Mr Joe Hui, for the respondent, does not oppose the appeal.  He submits that, under the revised guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3), the arithmetic starting point for trafficking in 928.14 grammes of cocaine narcotic would be 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  He seems to accept the judge’s finding that the appellant occupied the lowest rank in the hierarchy of drug traffickers.  On that basis, he submits that, after a one-third discount for the appellant’s guilty plea, the resultant sentence should be 11 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

The decision

11.  We are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to benefit from the revised guidelines.  However, we emphasise that this requires the Court to sentence him afresh, assessing his role and culpability and taking into account factors that aggravate or mitigate the offending involved, in accordance with current sentencing principles and policies.

12.  Had the appellant been sentenced under the revised guidelines, the starting point on an arithmetical basis, assuming that his role was that of a mere courier or storekeeper, would have been about 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  However, we cannot accept that he was a mere courier or storekeeper.  He was intercepted by police officers while making a delivery of eight bags of cocaine to others, and in his home the police officers found more cocaine together with items and equipment to weigh and package the drugs, and to make “crack cocaine”.[7]  He claimed he stored and delivered the cocaine for others.  However, in these circumstances he was no ordinary courier or storekeeper.  In light of his role and culpability, we would adopt a starting point of 19 years’ imprisonment.  After a one-third discount for his guilty plea, the resultant sentence would be 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

13.  Accordingly, we reduce the appellant’s sentence from 14 years and 4 months’ imprisonment to 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  To that extent his appeal is allowed.

[1]  Macrae VP.

[2]  Summary of Facts, para 1(1), (2) and (3): Appeal Bundle (“AB”), p 4.

[3]  Phenacetin is not a dangerous drug, although it is included in the Poisons List in Schedule 10 to the Pharmacy and Poisons Regulations, Cap 138A.  In the drug trade, phenacetin powder is utilised as a cutting agent (adulterant), primarily mixed into cocaine to dilute the pure substance and enhance the quantity.

[4]  AB, p 8L-M.

[5]  HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas [2009] 2 HKLRD 437.

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

[7]  It was admitted in the Summary of Facts that found in the appellant’s residence was about 2 kilogrammes of phenacetin and that the value of the drugs as “crack cocaine” was about HK$1.5 million.