HKSAR v. TAM DICKSON TAK SHUN

HCCC 342/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 342 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.  Defendant (aged 41), pleaded guilty on 26 October 2023 at the Eastern Magistracy before a Magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence accordingly.  Today, he appeared before me and confirmed his pleas and admission of the Summary of Facts.  He now falls to be sentenced.

2.  The charges are:

•  Charges 1–3: Passing or tendering counterfeit currency notes, contrary to section 99(1)(a)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200;

•  Charge 4: Having custody or control of counterfeit currency notes, contrary to section 100(1)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200;

•  Charges 5–6: Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134; and

•  Charge 7: Possession of offensive weapons in a public place, contrary to section 33(1)  and (2)  of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

3.  On 19 and 20 August 2021, Defendant used ten counterfeit HK$500 banknotes at three 7-Eleven convenience stores to top up various accounts:

•  Charge 1 (19 August 2021, 10:48 p.m., Shop No. L032, Tin Yiu Plaza, Tin Shui Wai): two counterfeit HK$500 notes;

•  Charge 2 (19 August 2021, 11:32 p.m., Ground Floor, No. 180 Castle Peak Road, Yuen Long): four counterfeit HK$500 notes;

•  Charge 3 (20 August 2021, No. 19 Woo Lung Street, Fanling): four counterfeit HK$500 notes.

4.  The stores’ CCTV captured Defendant wearing a distinctive black polo shirt with an “8” on the top right corner and an orange badge, and carrying a brown CHEVIGNON paper bag.  Police traced him to Room 960, Tower 2, Harbour Plaza Resort City, Tin Shui Wai, and placed the room under surveillance.

5.  On 20 August 2021 at about 6:01 p.m., Defendant and a female left the room carrying two paper bags (one brown CHEVIGNON bag and one green “GOOD THINGS INSIDE” bag).  They took the cargo elevator to the lobby, where Defendant was arrested.  The two paper bags were found nearby in the rear staircase on the 9^th floor.  The following items were found inside:

•  18 counterfeit HK$500 banknotes (Charge 4);

•  a Nokia phone box containing a plastic bag with 13 grammes of crystalline solid containing 12.9 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (Charge 5);

•  a black drawstring bag containing three beef knives and one extendable baton (Charge 7);

•  four mobile phones and a receipt for the transaction during Charge 2.

6.  Defendant’s room key was seized.  A search of Room 960 revealed a black plastic bag containing two transparent resealable plastic bags with a total of 26.9 grammes of crystalline solid containing 26.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, found on the cupboard next to the sofa (Charge 6).

7.  In the two video-recorded interviews, Defendant admitted, inter alias, the following:

•  he rented the room and kept the key, and controlled who could enter;

•  he bought the counterfeit notes from a friend and used them himself at the 7-Eleven stores;

•  the two paper bags and all items inside belonged to him;

•  he later put the unused counterfeite banknotes inside the “Nokia” phone box inside the bags;

•  he initially claimed the drugs were for self-consumption when he was first cautioned by the police inside the room, though he later accepted they were held for trafficking;

•  he bought the knives and baton for self-defence owing to grudges arising from debts.

8.  Defendant now unequivocally accepts that:

•  he knew or believed the notes were counterfeit (Charges 1–4);

•  he possessed the drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking (Charges 5–6); and

•  he had no lawful authority or reasonable excuse for the weapons (Charge 7).

THE DEFENDANT’S PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

9.  Defendant is single and he is a Hong Kong permanent resident.  He was educated to Form 3 level in Hong Kong and worked as a chef in various restaurants.  His parents divorced when he was 15 and his mother died of cancer in 2015.  He has maintained only limited contact with his family.

10.  Defendant has been brought up to court in 8 occasions involving no less than 11 criminal convictions since 2009 and 8 of which were all drugs related, mostly possession.  He was sent to Hei Ling Chau Correctional Institution twice in 2014 and 2016.  In 2011, he was sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment for Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs in District Court.  On 8 February 2017, he was sentenced to 6 years and 10 months’ imprisonment for drug trafficking in High Court and was released from custody on 16 March 2021 which is only less than five months before committing the present offences.  He has a history of drug abuse (ice and ketamine)  since 2000 and is said to have triad affiliations (14K).

11.  Defendant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and has been remanded in custody since his arrest on 20 August 2021.  He expresses deep remorse and a desire to rehabilitate and return to lawful work as a chef.

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES AND STARTING POINTS

A. Charges 1–4: Counterfeit Currency Offences

12.  The maximum penalty for each offence under sections 99(1)(a)  and 100(1)  of the Crimes Ordinance is 14 years’ imprisonment.  There are no statutory sentencing guidelines, but the Court of Appeal has given guidance in several authorities.

13.  In HKSAR v Li Ho Yin (CACC 128/2013), the Court of Appeal emphasized that tendering and custody of counterfeit notes are serious offences affecting the financial system and causing loss to the public and vendors.  The relevant factors include the number, face value and quality of the notes.  For a single counterfeit HK$100 notes, a starting point of 3½ years was considered appropriate.

14.  In HKSAR v Chen Zhu Shan (CACC 392/2005), the Court of Appeal approved a starting point of 3 years per charge where the case involved some 120 counterfeit HK$500 notes with a total face value of about HK$60,000.

15.  Here, the counterfeit notes in Charges 1–4 is a total of 28 notes, all of HK$500 denomination, with a combined face value of HK$14,000.  The notes were of poor inkjet quality.  Although the total amount is modest compared with some cases, the defendant used them on multiple occasions and at different locations, demonstrating a systematic attempt to pass them as genuine.

16.  Taking all these factors into account, and having regard to the authorities, I consider that the appropriate starting point for each of Charges 1 to 4 is 3 years’ imprisonment.

B. Charges 5–6: Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug

17.  Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence.  The maximum penalty under section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 is life imprisonment and a fine of HK$5 million.  The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 established a structured six-step approach for sentencing in drug trafficking cases.  That approach has been affirmed and refined in subsequent authorities including HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.  I shall apply that approach step by step.

Step 1: Identify the applicable guideline band

18.  The single drug involved in both charges is methamphetamine hydrochloride (“ice”).  The revised sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ice were set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (CACC 106/2022, [2025] HKCA 234):

Quantity of Ice	Sentencing range after trial
Up to 10 grammes	3 to 7 years
10 to 70 grammes	7 to 11 years
70 to 300 grammes	11 to 15 years
300 to 600 grammes	15 to 18 years
600 to 1,500 grammes	18 to 20 years
1,500 to 5,000 grammes	20 to 24 years
5,000 to 15,000 grammes	24 to 27 years
15,000 to 30,000 grammes	27 to 30 years
Over 30,000 grammes	Discretion of the court

19.  Charge 5 involves 12.9 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride whereas Charge 6 involves 26.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.  The combined total of these two charges is 39.1 grammes in both charges.

20.  Under the Huang Ruifang guidelines, 39.1 grammes falls within the 10 to 70 grammes band, which attracts a sentencing range of 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment after trial.

Step 2: Assess the role and culpability of the defendant

21.  Defendant’s role must be assessed by reference to the facts of the case and his degree of participation.

22.  Defendant was not merely a passive custodian of the drugs.  He was in exclusive control of the hotel room (Room 960, Tower 2, Harbour Plaza Resort City), having rented it and kept the sole key (though registered in his girlfriend’s name). He admitted that he controlled who could enter the room.  The drugs in Charge 5 (12.9 grammes)  were found inside a Nokia phone box within the two paper bags that the defendant had just taken out from the room and placed by the cargo elevator.  The drugs in Charge 6 (26.2 grammes)  were found inside the room itself, on the cupboard next to the sofa.  Both lots were in his possession and under his control.

23.  The drugs were packaged in multiple resealable plastic bags, which is indicative of supply rather than mere consumption.

24.  I assess Defendant’s role as that of an actual trafficker in possession of a substantial quantity of drugs for supply, rather than a mere courier or storekeeper.  His culpability is therefore higher within the applicable band.

Step 3: Identify the starting point by reference to the band

25.  Having identified the applicable band (7 to 11 years)  and assessed the defendant’s role and culpability as high, I must now select the appropriate starting point within that range.

26.  The total quantity of 39.1 grammes is at the lower end of the 10–70 grammes band.  In Huang Ruifang, the Court of Appeal indicated that the sentence should be calibrated according to the specific quantity within the band.  

27.  Here, the total quantity is 39.1 grammes – approximately midway within the band.  However, I must also take into account that the drugs were found in two separate locations, suggesting a degree of organisation and planning.  The defendant had concealed the drugs in different places (one lot in the paper bags outside the room, another inside the room), which indicates a deliberate effort to manage and distribute the drugs.

28.  I also note that both charges were committed on the same day and at substantially the same location.  Following the approach in HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei (CACC 389/2013, [2014] 4 HKC 75), where separate seizures on the same day are closely connected, the court may treat them as one overall quantity for the purpose of fixing a global starting point.  The circumstances of these two offences are such that the methamphetamine hydrochloride found in Charge 5 was clearly connected with that found in Charge 6.

29.  Mathematically speaking, the appropriate global starting point for Charges 5 and 6, before any aggravating or mitigating factors, is 8 years and 11.3 months and because of the role and culpability of Defendant, it was further heightened by 6.7 months to 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

Step 4: Consider aggravating factors

30.  I now turn to consider aggravating factors that warrant an increase to the starting point.

31.  Defendant has a significant and recent criminal record.  As said, he was sentenced on 8 February 2017 in High Court to 6 years and 10 months’ imprisonment for Trafficking in a dangerous drug offence and he was also sentenced for the similar offence for 40 months by the District Court back in 2011.  He was only released from prison less than 5 months before committing the present offences.  The present offences were therefore committed shortly after his release.

32.  Defendant’s previous convictions of trafficking in dangerous drugs is a highly significant aggravating factor.  In HKSAR v Li Ho Yin (CACC 128/2013), the Court of Appeal emphasized that previous convictions for similar offences, particularly where the offences are committed shortly after release from prison, are a serious aggravating feature.

33.  Defendant’s antecedents demonstrate persistent and entrenched criminality in relation to dangerous drugs.  He has shown that he is not deterred by substantial sentences of imprisonment.  His immediate re-offending upon release indicates a continuing and deliberate engagement in drug trafficking despite the severe penalties previously imposed.

34.  Defendant also has a history of drug abuse since 2000 (ice and ketamine)  and he has several “Possession of dangerous drugs” records and has been sentenced to the DATC twice already.

35.  It demonstrates a complete disregard for the law and a failure to rehabilitate despite drug rehabilitation service and a lengthy period of incarceration.

36.  For these reasons, I consider it appropriate to increase the starting point further by 12 months on account of the defendant’s previous similar drugs record and particularly, his drugs trafficking records.

37.  The revised starting point for Charges 5 and 6, after considering all these aggravating factors, is therefore 10 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

Step 5: Consider mitigating factors

38.  I now consider the mitigating factors advanced on behalf of the defendant.

39.  The defendant pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity.  This is a significant mitigating factor.  He is entitled to the full one-third discount for his guilty plea.

40.  The most significant mitigating factor is the early guilty plea, which attracts the standard one-third discount.  The other personal mitigation carries lesser weight, particularly given the defendant’s poor record and the short interval since his last release.  I do not consider that they justify any additional discount beyond the one-third already given for the guilty pleas, given the seriousness of the offending and the significant aggravating factors.

Step 6: Ensure the overall sentence is fair, just and balanced

41.  The final step is to ensure that the overall sentence is fair, just and balanced, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the principle of totality.

42.  Applying the one-third discount for the guilty plea to the revised starting point of 10 years and 6 months, the resulting sentence is 7 years’ imprisonment.

43.  The sentence of 7 years for Charges 5 and 6 (to run concurrently with each other)  is, in my judgment, proportionate to the gravity of the offences, the quantity of drugs involved, the defendant’s role and culpability, and his substantial previous record for similar offending.  

C. Charge 7: Possession of Offensive Weapons in a Public Place

44.  The maximum penalty under section 33(1)  and (2)  of the Public Order Ordinance is 3 years’ imprisonment.

45.  There is no fixed tariff, but in HKSAR v Yung Wai Shing (HCMA 101/2020, [2021] 1 HKLRD 919), the court identified relevant factors: the number and type of weapons, whether they are sharp or easily usable, where they are kept, and the intention of possession.  Self-defence is not a lawful excuse, though it may be relevant to the degree of culpability.

46.  Defendant possessed three beef knives and an extendable baton.  These are obviously dangerous items, capable of causing serious injury.  He kept them in a paper bag in a public stairwell.  His stated purpose – self-defence arising from debts – does not excuse the offence, but it does not suggest an intention to use them aggressively in a pre-planned attack.  I take a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment for Charge 7.

MITIGATION AND DISCOUNT FOR GUILTY PLEA

47.  Defendant pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity.  That is a significant mitigating factor.  He is entitled to the full one-third discount on each charge.

48.  I also take into account the mitigations advanced on his behalf including:

•  his expressions of remorse and regret;

•  his difficult personal background (broken family, financial hardship during the pandemic);

•  his stated determination to rehabilitate and return to lawful work as a chef; and

•  the lengthy period he has already spent on remand – now over five years.

49.  However, I do not lose sight of the fact that Defendant has a poor record, including a very recent similar drug offence.  He committed the present offences barely five months after serving a lengthy sentence.  This aggravates his culpability considerably and reduces the weight that would otherwise be given to his personal mitigation.

SENTENCE CALCULATION AND TOTALITY PRINCIPLE

50.  After applying the one-third discount, the sentences for each charge are as follows:

Charge 1 Counterfeit notes: 2 years

Charge 2 Counterfeit notes: 2 years

Charge 3 Counterfeit notes: 2 years

Charge 4 Custody of counterfeit notes: 2 years

Charge 5 Trafficking (12.9g ice):7 years

Charge 6 Trafficking (26.2g ice): 7 years

Charge 7 Possession of offensive weapons: 8 months

51.  The offences fall into three distinct categories:

•  counterfeit currency (Charges 1–4);

•  drug trafficking (Charges 5–6);

•  offensive weapons (Charge 7).

52.  These three categories of offences are unrelated in nature and involve different criminal conduct.  They were committed at different times and places. It would be wrong to make all sentences concurrent, as that would fail to reflect the overall criminality.

53.  I therefore order:

•  Charges 1–4 to run concurrently with each other (total 2 years);

•  Charges 5–6 to run concurrently with each other (total 7 years);

•  Charge 7 – 8 months.

54.  The drug trafficking sentence (7 years)  shall be consecutive to the counterfeit currency sentence (2 years).  6 months of the offensive weapons sentence shall also be consecutive to those two types of sentences, because it is largely a separate type of offending.

TOTALITY PRINCIPLE

55.  I have considered whether the total sentence is disproportionate to the overall offending.  The defendant’s conduct was serious in multiple respects: he systematically passed counterfeit notes, trafficked a substantial quantity of “ice”, and carried dangerous weapons in a public place.  His recent release from a long drug sentence and his immediate re-offending simply demonstrate his persistent disregard for the law.

56.  I am satisfied that the total sentence of 9 years and 6 months is proportionate and necessary to reflect the gravity of these 7 charges in order to deter the defendant and others, and to protect the public.

FINAL SENTENCE

57.  Final sentence: 2 years + 7 years + 6 months = 9 years 6 months’ imprisonment.