HKSAR v. NG HO LAAM

HCCC 119/2025

[2026] HKCFI 960

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 119 OF 2025

______________________

______________________

_______________

S E N T E N C E

_______________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of “trafficking in a dangerous drug” and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 31 March 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed his pleas and his agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of the charges state as follows.  Regarding Charge 1, on the 15th day of November 2023, outside Fung Lai Court, No.  8 Fung Lai Road, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 47.8 grammes of a solid containing 35.9 grammes of cocaine. 

3.  Charge 2, on the 15th day of November 2023, inside a taxi, registration number UP5742, outside Fung Lai Court, No.  8 Fung Lai Road, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 215 grammes of a solid containing 153.4 grammes of cocaine.

4.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows.  In the evening of 15 November 2023, police officers conducted an anti-narcotics operation at Wong Tai Sin.  At around 9.30 pm, PW1 and parties spotted the defendant acted furtively at the nearside rear passenger seat inside a taxi with registration number UP5742 (“the Taxi”), parked outside Fung Lai Court at Fung Lai Road.  PW1 thus approached the Taxi for inquiry.

5.  Just as PW1 and parties were approaching the Taxi, the defendant suddenly opened the rear passenger door and got off the Taxi.  When PW1 disclosed his police identity to the defendant, the defendant immediately dropped a plastic bag (“the Bag”) on the ground next to his feet.  PW1 then intercepted the defendant and picked up the Bag.

6.  Upon search of the Bag, two resealable plastic bags containing a total of 47.8 grammes of a solid containing 35.9 grammes of cocaine (“E1”) was found therein.  The defendant also had with him a mobile phone and cash of HK$2,000. 

7.  PW1 arrested the defendant. Under caution, the defendant admitted trafficking the dangerous drug as he was unemployed and after releasing from prison the month before. 

8.  Subsequently, police conducted search on the Taxi and found the following on the floor of the nearside rear passenger seat:

(1) A plastic bag containing six resealable plastic bags containing a total of 119 grammes of a solid containing 87.9 grammes of cocaine (“E2”).

(2) A plastic bag containing four resealable plastic bags containing a total of 96 grammes of a solid containing 65.5 grammes of cocaine (“E3”).

9.  The defendant was further arrested.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that E2 and E3 were dangerous drugs that he took to sell to others. 

10.  In subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant remained silent.

11.  The total drugs seized in the present case (E1 to E3) were confirmed by the Government Chemist to be 262.8 grammes of a solid containing 189.3 grammes of cocaine.

12.  The total estimated street value of E1 to E3 is HK$263,326 (in powder form) or HK$272,786 (in crack form).

13.  The defendant accepts and admits that at all material times, he knowingly possessed all the subject dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

14.  The personal background of the defendant is as follows.  The defendant is 21 years old and was 19 at the time of the offences.  He was born in Hong Kong and educated up to Secondary Form 4 level.

15.  The defendant’s father, aged 67, has been retired for over 10 years after closing his factory in mainland China.  He was diagnosed with lymphoma in early 2025 and is currently undergoing treatment.  The defendant’s mother, aged 58, is a housewife.  The defendant has two elder brothers, both of whom are social workers.  Prior to his remand, he resided with his parents and his second eldest brother.

16.  After completing Form 4, the defendant was employed by a management company providing services at the Hong Kong International Airport for one year, during which he worked as a waiter in various restaurants at the airport.  He also previously worked as an apprentice hairdresser and a delivery worker.

17.  The defendant has been unemployed, I am told, since 2020.  He was unemployed at the time of the offences.

18.  The defendant has one previous conviction for trafficking in a dangerous drug.  For that offence, he was sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment on 4 July 2024.  He is currently serving this sentence and is expected to complete the same in around January 2026.

19.  The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.  The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band (or bracket) applicable to the quantity of drug concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes.  It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant.  The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”.  The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced sentence”.

20.  Regarding the first step, the task is to identify the appropriate range applicable to the total quantity of drugs involved.  As the dangerous drugs the subject matter of the two charges were found on the same occasion, I consider it appropriate to treat all the dangerous drugs seized as one lot of drug and to ascertain an appropriate global starting point for the same.  The total quantity of drugs seized in respect of Charge 1 and Charge 2 is 189.30 grammes of cocaine.  For 50 to 200 grammes of cocaine, the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, at paragraph 62. 

21.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a courier of the drugs.

22.  Third, for a total quantity of 189.30 grammes of cocaine, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a “notional sentence after trial” of 11 years and 8.6 months’ imprisonment. In view of my aforesaid finding of the defendant’s role and culpability, I consider that 11 years and 8.6 months’ would be the appropriate global notional sentence after trial for the offences in question.

23.  Fourth, during his remand for the present case, the defendant was sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment in DCCC 649/2023 (“DC Case”).  He is still serving the sentence, which is expected to be completed in January 2026.  The DC Case was committed in January 2023, involving trafficking in 10.7 grammes of cocaine.  The defendant accepts that he committed the present offences whilst on bail for the DC Case.

24.  For this aggravating factor, I would enhance the starting point by six months.  This would take the global notional sentence after trial up to 12 years and 2.6 months’ imprisonment. 

25.  Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is his timely guilty plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount.  Accordingly, the global sentence to be imposed on the defendant is 8 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.

26.  To achieve that global sentence, I would sentence the defendant as follows: 

(i) 4 years and 7 months’ imprisonment on Charge 1.

(ii) 7 years and 2 months’ imprisonment on Charge 2.

(iii) I order that 11 months of the sentence on Charge 1 is to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 2, resulting in the total sentence of 8 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.

27.  Finally, as the defendant is currently serving the 38-month sentence imposed in the DC Case, I have to consider the question of totality in respect of the sentences to be served in the two cases, ie the present case and the DC Case.

28.  In HKSAR v Leung Ting Fung, CACC 109/2014 (Judgment dated 14 November 2014) at paragraph 36, McWalters JA stated as follows:

“...how should a court approach its sentencing task knowing that the offender before it is currently serving another sentence of imprisonment? The correct approach to sentencing an offender in this situation is now well established in Hong Kong. The judge dealing with an offender who is serving a sentence of imprisonment for offences occurring around the time of other offences for which the judge must now sentence the offender must step back and take a global view of the total sentence in light of the whole of the criminal conduct...”

29.  It is also stated in R v Ng Chung Keung, CACC 121/1993 (Judgment dated 20 August 1993) at pages 3 to 4 that:

“It is a well-known sentencing requirement that a sentencer dealing with an offender who has recently been sentenced to imprisonment by another Court for other offences must have regard to the totality of all the terms of imprisonment to which the offender will become subject. The sentencer must adjust the aggregate accordingly...”

30.  As mentioned above, during the remand for the present case, the defendant was sentenced for trafficking in 10.7 grammes of cocaine in the DC Case on 4 July 2024 for 38 months, and he is still serving the sentence. 

31.  Bearing in mind firmly the totality principle, and taking into account all the circumstances in the present case, I would order 18 months of the sentence imposed in the present case to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in the DC Case.   Thus, the defendant is subject to a total sentence of 9 years and 9 months’ imprisonment for the present case and the DC Case, and I consider that the above total sentence of 9 years and 9 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in view of all the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of the defendant.