HKSAR v. LAI KA MAN

HCCC 346/2024

[2025] HKCFI 3256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 346 OF 2024

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed before me for sentence.

In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on her behalf. I have also had regard to the sentencing approach as laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

The facts of the case are simple. On 28 August 2023, the police intercepted the defendant on the street. Upon search, dangerous drug was found in her sling bag. It was a total of 56.1 grammes of a mixture containing 44.7 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. She was arrested. Under caution, the defendant said the drug was for her own consumption. In a subsequent house search, nothing illegal was found.

The defendant is now 20 years old. She received education up to Form 6. She was unemployed at the time of arrest. She is single and has been living with her parents and two sisters. She did not have any criminal conviction record.

In mitigation, learned counsel for the defence, Ms Flora Cheng, stressed that the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and that she had a clear record. She urged me to take into account that the defendant co-operated with the police throughout the course of investigation.

Ms Cheng informed the court that the defendant was brought up in a working class family with her father being the main breadwinner working as a construction worker. Other family members also have decent jobs. The defendant was a conscientious student but when she was approaching Form 6, she started to have much anxiety to face the examination. She did not feel sufficient support in this aspect from the family and turned to peers. Under bad influence, she started to consume drug. As a result, in need of money, she succumbed to temptation and committed the present offence. The test conducted on her upon remand confirmed the presence of cocaine in her urine.

Ms Cheng said the defendant is truly remorseful. She informed the court whilst in custody the defendant attended vocational training course run by the Chinese University. She obtained a certificate of food hygiene and wishes to restart her life by joining the food business.

The defendant has the support of her family and friends. Her father and sisters are in court, so are some of her previous classmates.

The defence produced a letter written by the defendant in which she expressed remorse and desire to turn a new leaf. Letters from family members were also submitted. They said the defendant is a person of good nature and trust she is remorseful and will reform. They plead leniency on behalf of the defendant.

The drug involved in this case was heroin hydrochloride. Having heard counsel and had regard to the observation of the Court of Final Appeal in Seabrook v HKSAR [1999] 2 HKCFAR 184, I am of the view that the tariff set out in the recent case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 should be applied.

In that case, the Court of Appeal remarked a sentence of 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment should be considered for trafficking in heroin if the narcotic content is between 10 and 50 grammes. In all the circumstances of the present case, I do not find there are good grounds to depart from the tariff.

I accept the submission of Ms Cheng that the defendant was a courier and she occupied a low position in the hierarchy. The defendant was around 20 years old at the time of the offence. Though relatively young, this matter has little bearing on the sentence as the offence is of a very serious nature. In all the circumstances, I consider a notional sentence after trial of 7½ years appropriate.

The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is, for this reason, entitled to a one-third discount. In my judgment, taking into account the whole circumstances, including what learned counsel ably said on the defendant’s behalf, this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to. I am also of the view that the sentence to be imposed is a fair, just, and balanced one in all the circumstances of the case and of the defendant.

For these reasons, I sentence you to an immediate imprisonment term of 5 years.