HKSAR v. NG HO LAM AND ANOTHER

HCCC 40/2025

[2025] HKCFI 3380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 40 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The 1st defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs and one count of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs. The 2nd defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, and one count of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs.

On 17 April 2022, the 1st defendant was seen by the police holding a paper bag, walking into the fitting room of a store in Nathan Road, Tsim Sha Tsui. He was stopped by the police when he came out and, upon search, 100 plastic bags of cocaine were found inside the paper bag. Under caution, the 1st defendant admitted that he intended to deliver the cocaine to others as instructed. The 100 plastic bags contained a total of 15.6 grammes of a solid, containing 14.5 grammes of cocaine.

On the morning of 18 April 2022, the police conducted a search on a flat on the 12th Floor, Mirador Mansion, Nathan Road, where the following items were found:

(a) a red shoulder bag containing two plastic bags, one of which contained 42 plastic bags of cocaine, and the other contained 26 plastic bags of cocaine;

(b) two glass inhalers;

(c) a notebook; and

(d) a food order received in the 1st defendant’s name.

In his video-recorded interview, the 1st defendant admitted that the cocaine inside the brown paper bag was to be delivered to a person, later identified as “Fan”, for the 2nd defendant.

The 1st defendant also stated that the 2nd defendant invited him to do drug business two years ago, and Fan was the one who taught them about drug dealings. They conducted their drug dealings at a place in Temple Street, where they sold cocaine to people at $350 per packet of 0.16 grammes of cocaine.

The 1st defendant had a daily wage of $500, with $30 commission for selling each packet of drug. Approximately 30 packets of drugs would be sold each day. The 1st defendant would get 4,000 to $5,000 commission per week. Fan was the one who supplied the drugs and gave instructions for the whole operation.

The 2nd defendant was arrested on 22 April 2022 at Tin Shui Wai. In his video-recorded interview, the 2nd defendant said he knew Fan one to two years ago. Fan was in the age of 25 to 26 years old. Fan introduced him to drug business. Prior to 15 April 2022, the 2nd defendant had been selling drugs in the Temple Street premises for three to four months.

From 15 April 2022, the 1st and 2nd defendants sold drugs at Mirador Mansion. His wage was $500 per day, and he earned a commission of $30 for each packet of drugs sold. The drugs were sold at $350 each packet. Each packet contains 0.165 grammes of cocaine. Fan paid the wages of the 1st and 2nd defendants weekly in cash. Whenever the drugs were out of stock, he would call Fan, and Fan would arrange for delivery.

The street value of the drugs seized was about $42,443.30.

The 1st defendant was born in May 2006. He was 15 years old at the time of the offence, and is now 19. He has no previous conviction. He received education up to Form 2 level. He was recruited to sell drugs in order to earn quick money.

The 2nd defendant was born in December 2003. He was 18 years old at the time of the offence, and is now 21. He has a clear record. He quitted school in 2021 when he was a Form 5 student.

Mr Pun, counsel for the 2nd defendant, submitted that the 2nd defendant was induced by Fan to sell cocaine for reward.

During the time the 2nd defendant was in custody, he continued his study and learning hair cutting and construction works. He wrote a letter to the court saying that he is now very remorseful and has deeply regretted for doing harm to others and society. He now realises how much his parents loved him, and he would very much like to repay them. His parents and social worker also wrote letters to the court asking for leniency.

In considering the appropriate sentence for trafficking in cocaine, I make reference to the judgments of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, and HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKRLD 138.

The quantities of cocaine involved in Charge 1 was 14.5 grammes. The quantities of cocaine involved in Charge 2 was 10.3 grammes. Under Huang Ruifang, the starting point for trafficking in cocaine for 10 to 50 grammes is 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment. In arithmetic calculation, the starting point for Charge 1 should be around 5 years and 3 months, and Charge 2 should be around 5 years.

For Charge 3, the quantity of drugs involved in the conspiracy is not specified. In HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing [2017] 5 HKLRD 799, the Court of Appeal stated that in this kind of situation, the sentencing court would have to do its best to arrive at a starting point based on inferences and assumptions derived from the facts in the case, and if such inferences or assumptions are not clear-cut ones, they will inevitably lean in favour of the defence.

Factors relevant for assessing the quantities of drugs involved in the conspiracy include, in this case:

(a) The period of conspiracy was from December 2021 to 17 April 2022.

(b) The 1st and 2nd defendant operated a shop at Temple Street during the time when recognised customers knocked at the door, they would let them in and sell them the required quantity of the cocaine for $350 per packet of 0.16 grammes.

(c) The 1st and 2nd defendant received a daily wage of $500, with $30 commission for selling each packet of drug. The customers would consume the cocaine in the shop.

(d) The shop operated 24 hours every day, and shifts were shared between the 1st and 2nd defendant. According to the 1st defendant, approximately 30 packets of drugs would be sold each day. He would get 4,000 to 5,000 commission per week.

(e) He started working in the business from mid-February to 17 April 2022. He earned a total amount of $27,000 from the very beginning to the time he was arrested.

(f) According to the 2nd defendant, he had been selling drugs for three to four months in the shop. The shop sold 10-odd to 70-odd packets of drugs a day. He received several thousand dollars a week as commissions apart from the daily salary of $500.

(g) The police found a notebook and two pieces of paper showing apparently the record of sales of drugs at the shops.

First of all, I consider the notebook and the two pieces of paper not of any assistance for the purpose, as there was only one day’s record in the notebook, and the records on the papers were not prepared by any of the defendants.

Secondly, I do not accept the submission of Mr Wong, counsel for the 1st defendant, that the 1st defendant earned a total of $27,000 commissions for the whole period of time he worked in this drug-selling operation.

According to the 1st defendant’s representation in the video-recorded interview, the $27,000 was the total amount he earned. He did not refer to it as the commission he earned. Moreover, he expressly admitted that he earned 4,000 to 5,000 commission per week, and he had worked at the shop for two months. That will amount to at least 32,000 in total.

In assessing the approximate quantity of drugs sold by the conspiracy, I will adopt the figure of $4,000 commissions received by each of the defendants per week, as it is the lowest amount admitted by the 1st defendant, and also falls within the range admitted by the 2nd defendant.

If the defendants received $30 per packet sold, $4,000 will represent 133 packets sold per week. That is 19 packets per person per day. This will be lower than the 30 packets admitted by the 1st defendant, and within the lower range of packets sold admitted by the 2nd defendant.

In the premises, I will adopt 38 packets as the notional number of packets sold by the two defendants each day. Making reference to the purity level of the packets of the drug seized in the shop, that is 0.144 each, the notional quantity of drugs sold each day under the conspiracy will be 5.47 grammes per day.

Using a date most favourable to the defendants under the charge, the conspiracy started on 31 December 2021, and ended on 17 April 2022. The total number of days will be 108 days; hence, the total quantity is 108 times 5.47 equals 590 grammes.

Under the guideline in Huang Ruifang, for trafficking in cocaine in the quantity from 500 to 1,500 grammes, the starting point should be 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment.

Based on the above considerations, for Charge 1, I will adopt a starting point of 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. Taking into account the 1st defendant’s guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 42 months’ imprisonment.

For Charge 2, a starting point of 5 years is adopted and reduced to 40 months for the guilty plea.

For Charge 3, the conspiracy lasted for more than three months, and a large quantity of cocaine was involved. The defendants even allowed customers to use drugs at the shop. In my view, the operation cannot be in any way described as in a small scale. Taking into account the scale of the operation under the conspiracy, I would adopt a starting point of 16 years’ imprisonment for Charge 3. Considering the guilty pleas, it is reduced to 10 years and 8 months.

For the 1st defendant, he was just 15 years old at the time of the offence. I consider it appropriate to adjust the sentence downward due to his very young age, and a period of one and a half years is accordingly reduced.

The 1st defendant also joined the conspiracy much later and, in all fairness, another period of 1 year is reduced. The 1st defendant is therefore sentenced to 8 years and 2 months’ imprisonment for Charge 3.

For the 2nd defendant, at the time of the offence he was 18 years old. He was young, but not that young to attract much leniency in sentencing. However, I accept that he has demonstrated genuine remorse by reading his letter and the letters written by his parents and social worker. And in consideration of his relatively young age and having no previous conviction, I will give him a reduction of 8 months’ imprisonment. The 2nd defendant is sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for Charge 3.

I accept counsel’s submission that the sentence for the charges shall be served concurrently. To conclude, for the 1st defendant, he is sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1, 40 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2, and 8 years and 2 months for Charge 3. The sentence for all charges be served concurrently with each other, totalling 8 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

For the 2nd defendant, he is sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2 and 10 years’ imprisonment for Charge 3. Sentence for the two charges be served concurrently, totalling 10 years’ imprisonment.