HKSAR v. LAM TSZ FUNG

HCCC 367/2024

[2025] HKCFI 2321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 367 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

The Charge

1.  On 31 October 2024, the defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The count involved 1,043.9 grammes of a solid containing 881.4 grammes of cocaine.  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 4 October 2024 and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed his guilty plea to the trafficking count and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.  The facts of the case can be summarized as follows. 

3.  On 9^th June 2022, at around 1:45 p.m., Customs officers observed a private car bearing registration number XY 7095 (“Vehicle 1”)  arrive in an open area in Ping Yeung, Lung Kwu Tan. Shortly after, they observed the defendant alight from Vehicle 1 and walk towards another car bearing registration number XG 5100 (“Vehicle 2”), which was parked nearby.  The defendant opened the door of Vehicle 2, leaned towards the driver’s seat before he closed the door and returned to Vehicle 1.  He then drove Vehicle 1 away.

4.  At around 7:08 p.m. on the same day, the defendant drove Vehicle 1 back to the same location.  He then alighted from Vehicle 1 and went over to Vehicle 2 and sat in the driver’s seat of Vehicle 2.  Customs officers then intercepted him.

5.  The car keys of Vehicle 1 and Vehicle 2 and a mobile phone were found on the defendant.

6.  A search of Vehicle 2 found another mobile phone and a total of 54 plastic bags containing the drugs which form the subject of the trafficking charge.

7.  Using passwords provided by the defendant, Customs officers examined the two mobile phones and found photographs of plastic bags containing white and pink solids.

8.  The defendant was arrested at the scene. 

9.  The defendant admitted in the Summary of Facts that at all material times, he unlawfully trafficked in the dangerous drugs seized in the present case.

Background and mitigation

10.  The defendant is single and is now aged 35 years old.  He was brought up in a single-parent household and his mother struggled to support the family and to spend enough time with him.  Despite his upbringing in difficult family circumstances, after leaving school, the defendant had always been in full time employment until his arrest for the present case.  He was then employed as a restaurant operator but due to the poor business, the restaurant failed to make money and left him in financial distress.

11.  The defendant’s mother has written a letter to tell the Court that although he grew up in difficult circumstances, the defendant was not a bad character although he might have trusted his friends too much.  His mother also mentioned about the charity work that the defendant had done, including doing free haircuts for others during the epidemic and going out to donate masks and supplies.  She also pleaded for leniency from the Court.

12.  The founder of a social enterprise known as “SILENCE” has also written a letter to the Court to show the defendant’s willingness to do charity work since 2016 to help those who were deaf or hard of hearing.  In 2021, the defendant and his friend established a restaurant which sold lunch boxes at a low price to the poor and the needy in the community. 

13.  The defendant has three previous criminal convictions, none of which are similar to the present offence, and all of which were committed nearly twenty years ago when the defendant was a teenager.

14.  His counsel Mr. Davies told the Court that the role of the defendant in the present case was that of a courier.  He was arranged by others to collect the drugs and to deliver them to others.  At the time of his arrest, he had not even received any remuneration for that.  Mr. Davies submitted that as such, there are no factors which would call for the starting point to be enhanced. 

15.  Mr. Davies also pointed out to the Court that the defendant has accepted full responsibility from the outset, and he has been fully co-operative with the Customs.  He has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and he is remorseful for his foolish behaviour.

Sentence

16.  In sentencing the defendant, I will follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

17.  The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question.  In the present case, Mr. Davies accepted that with the total quantity of 881.4 grammes of cocaine, the starting point should be about 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 at §62.  That starting point is also confirmed by Ms. Clara Ma, counsel acting for the prosecution.

18.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court.  In short, the defendant was observed by Customs officers to be driving a vehicle to the scene with the dangerous drugs on board.

19.  The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band the defendant should come.  In my assessment, the defendant’s role was that of a courier.

20.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  The defendant’s three previous convictions were all unrelated to dangerous drugs and I shall disregard them.  I therefore do not find any applicable aggravating factor.

21.  The fifth step is to take into account the mitigating factors, if any.  As accepted by Mr. Davies, given the seriousness of the trafficking offence, the only 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.  Given his guilty plea, I will reduce the sentence from 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment by one third to 11 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. 

22.  Lastly, I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 11 years and 8 months.

Exhibits

23.  Order in terms of the Prosecution’s application, not objected to by the Defence, was granted.