HKSAR v. LAU HO KWAN

HCCC 15/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 15 OF 2026

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs[1] and was committed, on 8 January 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.  Particulars of the Charge are that the defendant, on 16 July 2024, outside Lai Fu House, Lai Kok Estate, No. 12 Tonkin Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, in Hong Kong (hereinafter “the Location”), unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 133.1 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 132.4 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (i.e. “ICE”,) 52.72 grammes of a solid containing 44.17 grammes of ketamine and 13.12 grammes of a solid containing 9.45 grammes of cocaine.

FACTS

3.  The facts admitted can be summarized as follows.

4.  On 16 July 2024 at about 10:55 pm, during an operation at the Location, police officers saw the Defendant alone inside a parked taxi. He was furtively looking around.  They intercepted him, and asked him to alight the taxi for a search.

5.  The Police did not find anything implicating on the Defendant, but upon search of the taxi, the Defendant’s cross-body bag placed next to the driver seat was searched. It contained the following dangerous drugs:

(i) 35 plastic bags containing 133.1 grammes of crystalline solid containing 132.4 grammes of ICE

(ii) 31 plastic bags containing 52.72 grammes of a solid containing 44.17 grammes of ketamine;

(iii) 46 plastic bags containing 13.12 grammes of a solid containing 9.45 grammes of cocaine.

6.  Police also seized 5 mobile phones from the taxi and HK$1,563.2 cash on the Defendant.  The phones were ultimately found not to be connected to any offences.

7.  Under caution at the scene, the Defendant admitted trafficking drugs for quick money.  He further elaborated his admissions in a subsequent VRI, stating that he met an acquaintance at a gathering earlier, who recruited him to traffic drugs.  About 3 hours before his was intercepted by the police, he received a call to meet up an unknown person at Un Chau Street, where he was given the cross-body bag.  The unknown person told him the types of drugs contained in it. D then was told to drive to the Location where he was intercepted by police.  He said he would receive HK$200 for thedelivery and it was his first time doing this.

8.  The taxi belonged to a taxi rental company and the Defendant started to rent it since March 2024 (i.e. for about 4 months).

9.  The Police narcotic expert estimated the street values of the said drugs at the point of the offence being:

(i) For the "ice": HK$66,816 (at HK$502/gramme);

(ii) For the ketamine: HK$25,516 (at HK$484/gramme); and

(iii) For the cocaine: HK$9,853 (at HK$751/gramme for cocaine powder) or HK13,750 (at HK$1,048/gramme for crack cocaine).

10.  By his admission to the Summary of Facts, the defendant admits and accepts that he was knowingly in possession of all the dangerous drugs seized in this case for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

11.  The defendant has four previous convictions in 2010 for which he was sentenced to 100 hours CSO, but none are related to drugs.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

12.  Mr. Roy Lau, counsel for the Defendant, provided the Court with helpful and detailed written submissions for mitigation. 

13.  In summary, the Defendant was born on 25 April 1989 in Hong Kong.  He is now 37 years old.  He was educated up to secondary form 7.

14.  At the time of the offences in July 2024, he was 35 years old.

15.  He is divorced and lived with his parents in Po Lam Estate.  He worked as a taxi driver and earned about $30,000 per month.  He isnot a drug addict.

16.  Mr. Lau informed the court that the defendant is remorseful for the offences and pleads for leniency. His remorse is shown by his timely guilty plea.

SENTENCING

17.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for trafficking in dangerous drugs is life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

18.  The six-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

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

20.  This case concerns 3 types of drugs: -

(1) For the 132.4 grammes of ICE, the sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3)[2025] 2 HKLRD 138 for ICE are applied and it would fall under the band of “50 - 200 grammes: 8 to 12 years”;

(2) For the44.17 grammes of ketamine, the sentencing guidelines as stated in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 are applied and they would fall under the band of “10 to 50 grammes: 4 to 6 years' imprisonment”;

(3) For the 9.45 grammes 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 at under the lowest band of “up to 10 grammes with 2 to 5 years”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

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

22.  I accept Mr. Lau’s submission that the Defendant in this case is mere courier.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

23.  In determining the proper overall starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principle of trafficking in more than one type of drugs.

24.  There were three means of cross‑checking the appropriateness of the overall starting point in the case of a trafficking involving different types of dangerous drugs.  The absurdity test, conversion test and the ratio test (see the cases of HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin & Another[4] and HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong[5]). 

25.  However, in the recent case of HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885 (handed down on 28 May 2026), the Court of Appeal provided new guidance on the use of these cross-checking tests when sentencing offenders involving a cocktail or combination of drugs.  Zervos JA (giving judgment of the Court) explained, inter alia, that the absurdity test provides for a calculation indicating the upper limit of the sentence (§36) and the conversion test is computationally complex and the outcomes may vary depending on the choice of base drug and the conversion rate used, giving rise to a risk of inconsistency and undue complication(§§37-38).  His Lordship concluded at §42 that: -

“In light of the structured approach set out in Herry Jane Yusuph and the revised sentencing guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3), the absurdity and conversion tests no longer serve any useful or principled purpose as cross checks; the ratio test, while conceptually straightforward and consistent with the differentiated guidelines for hard and soft drugs, is to be used only in that secondary role.”

26.  Therefore I shall only use the ratio test for cross-checking in this case.

27.  On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline bands:

(1) 132.4 grammes of ICEwould lead to 12 years and 1 month imprisonment;

(2) 44.17grammes of ketamine would lead to 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment;

(3) 9.45grammes of cocaine would lead to 4 years 10 months’ imprisonment.

28.  To achieve a reasonable and realistic sentence, I will adopt the combined approach which involve an upward adjustment from the starting point of the base drug: see HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817 and HKSAR v Islam SM Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146 §27.  I shall then cross-check whether the starting point to be adopted is fair and appropriate by using the ratio test as stated above.

29.  ‘ICE’ in this case is the more and most potent drug (both in terms of quantity and potency) therefore I shall use ICE as the base drug to calculate the starting point.

30.  Using ICE as the base drug, the starting point for 132.4 grammes of ICE is 12 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.  I now have to decide what upward adjustment I should make for the remaining ketamine and cocaine.  As explained in Islam SM Majharul §27(3), to determine by how much this starting point should be increased to allow for the quantity of the other drug(s) is ultimately an exercise of sentencing discretion and should be done by:

(i) considering the quantity of the other drugs and the relevant sentence according to that drug’s sentencing guidelines and by reference to the starting point adopted for the base drug. Here there are 44.17grammes of ketamine would corresponds to 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment; and 9.45grammes of cocaine would correspond to 4 years 10 months’ imprisonment

(ii) conducting an overall comparison of the sentencing guidelines of the drugs and their related ranges of sentence;

(iii) examining the results of the ratio test, which yielded a result of 11 years and 8 months.

(iv) taking all these matters into account to calculate a reasonable and realistic increase to the starting point. I would increase the starting point of 12 years and 1 month’s imprisonmentby 8 months’ imprisonment, resulting in 12 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

31.  In determining the appropriate overall starting point, I will also need to take into consideration the role and the culpability of the defendant, being a mere courier, I shall therefore adopt an overall notional starting point of 12 years and 9 months’ imprisonment at this step.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

Two different types of dangerous drugs

32.  This case involved the trafficking in three types of dangerous drugs. 

33.  In the case of HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong[6], the Court of Appeal stated the fact that the seizure of two or more types of dangerous drugs at the same time, even though separately packed and not in a prepared mixture, may lead to two possible aggravating features.  One being the ability of the trafficker to cater to a wider market, the other being the effect on users of combinations of dangerous drugs. 

34.  As explained in Islam SM Majharul §27(4), after the determination of how much the starting point should be increased to allow for the quantity of the other drug(s).  The Court has to determine the level of enhancement to the starting point for the aggravating factor that the trafficking involved two or more serious dangerous drugs.  I would enhance the starting point by 3 months on account of this factor. 

35.  As the previous convictions are not related to drugs I shall not treat them as aggravating factors in this case.

36.  There being no other aggravating factors, the above analysis results in the 13 years imprisonment by this step.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

37.  Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the only strong mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is his 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 8 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Step 6: Totality

38.  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

39.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.