HKSAR v. LAM SAI SING

HCCC 270/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 270 OF 2025

____________________

____________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.  The Defendant faces two charges of “Trafficking in a dangerous drug”, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

2.  Charge 1 relates to 64.82 grammes of heroin hydrochloride found on his person.  Charge 2 relates to a further 468.81 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 4.84 grammes of cocaine seized from his rented flat.

3.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to both charges in the Magistrates’ Court on 11 August 2025 and admitted the Summary of Facts.  The case was committed to this Court for sentence.

4.  He now appears before me for sentencing, having confirmed his pleas and the admission of the facts.

FACTS

5.  The summary of facts reveal a classic stop and search case.  On 7 October 2024, police conducted an anti-narcotic operation and intercepted the Defendant in the junction of Un Chau Street and Wing Lung Street at Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon.  A search found a juice box in the front pocket of his pair of shorts containing 300 packets of a mixture with 64.82 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (Charge 1).

6.  A subsequent search of his rented flat situated at Flat C, 5^th Floor, No 1D Wing Lung Street, uncovered significant quantities of drugs and paraphernalia, including a total of 468.81 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 4.84 grammes of cocaine, packed in various coloured packets, along with an electronic scale, a sealer, a pair of scissors, a lighter and empty juice boxes (Charge 2).

7.  Under caution and in a video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted he was employed by “Ah Fai” to deliver and repackage drugs for a reward of HK$500 per delivery.  He stated the cocaine was for his own consumption.

8.  The total narcotic quantity for both charges is 538.47 grammes of heroin and cocaine, with an estimated street value of between approximately HK$372,348 and HK$374,352.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

9.  The Defendant is 61 years old.  He was born in Hong Kong and received only primary 6 Education.  He worked as a cleaner earning about HK$7,000 but he was unemployed for two weeks before he was arrested.  He was divorced but he lived with his girlfriend and their son and daughter aged 10 and 8 respectively.  He has a lengthy criminal record, including 5 previous convictions for drug trafficking and 7 previous convictions for possession, and has been sentenced to Drug Addiction Treatment Centre on three prior occasions in 2001, 2007 and 2010.  He was last sentenced to 20 and 38 months’ imprisonment by the District Court in 2018 and 2019.  He suffers from several health issues.  He has expressed remorse in his own mitigation letter.

CONSIDERATION OF SENTENCE

10.  In sentencing the defendant, I shall apply the six-step sentencing approach set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

THE FIRST STEP – GRAVITY OF THE OFFENCE

11.  The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence by reference to the quantity of drugs.  The total narcotic involved is 538.47 grammes of heroin and cocaine.

12.  Defendant pleaded guilty and is convicted of two trafficking charges, Charge 1 and 2.  He was first arrested when he left the building of the rented premises where 64.82 grammes of heroin related to Charge 1 was found on his person.  He was then escorted to the flat where he is the registered tenant.  Inside the flat, a total of 468.81 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 4.84 grammes of cocaine related to Charge 2 were found. 

13.  In such circumstances, I consider the trafficking offences underlying these two charges arose from the same course of the criminal conduct.  It is therefore only fair that the aggregate amount of the drugs involved should be added altogether for fixing a global starting point. 

14.  The present case therefore involves a total of 538.47 grammes of narcotics.  Applying the revised guidelines from HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 for a quantity between 500 and 1,500 grammes involving heroin and cocaine, the applicable starting point is 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment.  A strict arithmetic calculation for 538.47 grammes results in a notional starting point of approximately 16 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

THE SECOND AND THIRD STEPS – ROLE, CULPABILITY & PLACEMENT WITHIN THE BAND

15.  The second step is to assess the Defendant’s role and culpability.  The third step is to place him within or outside the guideline band.

16.  Mr. Chase Pun, counsel for the defendant submits that the Defendant was a courier and storekeeper, recruited by “Ah Fai” to deliver and repackage drugs for a small fixed fee.  He was not the organiser, financier, or direct seller.  His role is at the lower end of the trafficking hierarchy.

17.  In my judgment, however, the defendant’s role in the present case was more than a mere courier or storekeeper.  The Defendant should be considered as such based on his own admission after the arrest that he helped Ah fai to repack the drugs in his flat and the presence of the large quantities of drugs found at his flat and the paraphernalia associated with drug trafficking, including an electronic scale, a sealer and empty juice boxes.  Therefore, an enhancement of the sentence is required due to the heightened culpability based on his role.

18.  Before determining an appropriate enhancement in the present case, I have referred myself to cases involving sentence enhancements based on the defendant’s more culpable role, while being mindful that each case depends on its own facts.

19.  In HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644, Zervos JA considered an enhancement of six months’ imprisonment appropriate for a defendant who was involved in the packaging and dissemination of dangerous drugs by renting a room to store them.  The defendant in that case was also in possession of over 90 bags and packets of drugs at the time of his arrest and was found with a knife bearing traces of the drugs, as well as an electronic scale. Similarly, in HKSAR v Leung Choi-ying, Cherry and Another [2024] HKCFI 72, an enhancement of six months’ imprisonment was considered appropriate for a defendant who admitted to being instructed to pick up a pack of dangerous drugs to repack it into eight to nine packs in a hotel room for sale to others.

20.  Considering the cases above and Defendant’s role and involvement in the present case, apart from delivering the drugs, he was obviously involved in repackaging of the drugs as well.  I consider a similar enhancement is required to reflect his heightened culpability.  His overall sentence would therefore be increased from 16 years and 2 months to 16 years and 8 months’ of imprisonment.

THE FOURTH STEP – AGGRAVATING FACTORS

21.  The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors.  The Defendant's significant record of previous drug offences is a serious aggravating feature.  No other aggravating factors are present.  In order to reflect his bad records and to achieve the deterrent effect, his sentence should be be further enhanced by 10 months to 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

THE FIFTH STEP – MITIGATING FACTORS

22.  The fifth step is to consider mitigating factors.

23.  First, the Defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.  He is entitled to, and will receive, the full one-third discount for his timely plea.

24.  Second, he claims part of the drugs were for his own consumption.  He is a long-term addict, and the circumstances, including the presence of a small quantity of cocaine and his positive urine test, lend some support to this claim regarding a minor portion of the drugs.  While the proportion for self-consumption is small, I will still exercise my discretion to grant a modest further reduction of 6 months in sentence for this factor.  The overall starting point before the one third reduction is therefore 17 years’ imprisonment.  After the reduction, the sentence is reduced to 136 months which is 11 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

THE SIXTH STEP – APPRAISAL OF THE OVERALL SENTENCE

25.  The final step is to ensure the overall sentence is fair, just and balanced.  Having stood back to consider the totality, a sentence of 11 years and 4 months’ imprisonment in both charges reflects the Defendant’s overall criminality, his guilty plea, and his mitigation for self-consumption, while giving due weight to the very substantial quantity of drugs and his poor criminal record.

ORDER

26.  As said, I treated the quantities of the dangerous drugs in these two charges as the same batch and I therefore impose the following sentences:

(i) Charge 1: 11 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

(ii) Charge 2: 11 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

27.  Given the close connection in time and facts between the two charges, the sentences shall run concurrently, making a total sentence of 11 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.