HKSAR v. LAM HOI YAN

HCCC 401/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 401 OF 2025

________________

________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

The Charge

1.  On 17 November 2025, the Defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to the 1^st charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 and the 2^nd charge of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.  The 1^st charge involved 6.11 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 6.09 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 7.31 grammes of a solid containing 6.94 grammes of cocaine.  In the 2^nd charge, whilst the dangerous drug is specified to be ketamine, no quantity is particularised.  On the same day, the Defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 16 October 2025 and she was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the Defendant confirmed her guilty pleas to the two charges and admitted an amended Summary of Facts dated 4 March 2026.

Facts Admitted

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

3.  On 12 June 2024, the police set up a roadblock in Yau Ma Tei and they stopped a taxi in which the Defendant was sitting at the rear passenger seat and had a black handbag next to her feet.  The police instructed the Defendant to alight from the taxi and upon search, one cosmetic bag and one golden red packet were found in the Defendant’s handbag.  Inside the cosmetic bag, the police found a total of 56 cartridges of liquid (“E1”).  Further, the golden red packet was found to contain one plastic bag of suspected dangerous drug (“E2”) and another plastic bag containing 10 smaller plastic bags of suspected dangerous drug (“E3”).

4.  Upon arrest and caution, the Defendant claimed that those cartridges mixed with “K-jai” (i.e. E1), the pack of “pork” (i.e. E2) and the pack of “coke” (i.e. E3) all belonged to her for her own consumption and they had nothing to do with the driver.

5.  E1 to E3 were subsequently examined and were found to be:-

(a) E1 were 56 cartridges containing a total of 73.1 grammes of a liquid in which substances controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance were not detected;

(b) E2 was 6.11 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 6.09 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (the subject matter of the 1^st charge); and

(c) E3 contained a total of 7.31 grammes of a solid containing 6.94 grammes of cocaine (the subject matter of the 1^st charge).

6.  At the time of arrest, the Defendant had 6 mobile phones and cash of HK$1,679.10.

7.  The estimated street value of 6.11 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride was HK$2,988 and that of 7.31 grammes of cocaine was HK$6,265 (in powder form) or HK$7,639 (in crack form).

8.  In the amended Summary of Facts, the Defendant admitted that at the material time, she unlawfully trafficked in all the cocaine and methamphetamine hydrochloride seized.  She further admitted that at the material time, she attempted to unlawfully traffic E1 as ketamine.

Background andmitigation

9.  Very brief information was provided by her counsel, Mr. Ching, to the Court on the Defendant’s background.  The Defendant was aged 45 at the time of the offence and is now aged 47.  She was born in the Mainland and received her secondary education in Hong Kong.  She had worked as a waitress but was unemployed at the time of arrest. In April and May 2015, she suffered from tuberculosis.  In December 2025, she had an operation and she still requires follow-up treatment now in Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

10.  The Defendant has been brought before the courts on seven previous occasions between 2009 and 2019 with a total of 8 convictions recorded, including one conviction for possession of dangerous drugs in 2009 (fined $2,500), one for trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2019 (sentenced to 5 years and 2 months’ imprisonment) and four convictions of theft.  

11.  In respect of the 1^st charge, Mr. Ching invited the Court to follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. Mr. Ching acknowledged that it is an aggravating factor for two types of drugs to be involved in one charge.  In respect of the 2^nd charge of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug, Mr. Ching referred the Court to the cases of HKSAR v Li Oi Yee [2012] 1 HKLRD 276 and HKSAR v Cheng Ling Ling [2019] 3 HKLRD 797 where it was stated that the courts should look at the sentence which would have been imposed for trafficking in the dangerous drug the defendant believed he possessed, and accord a reduction in recognition of the fact that the actus reus brought with it no harm. 

Sentence

12.  I shall first deal with the 1^st charge.  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.

13.  The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantities of the dangerous drugs in question.  In the present case, the two types of drugs were methamphetamine hydrochloride (or “ice”) and cocaine. 

14.  When more than one type of dangerous drugs are involved in a trafficking offence, the court will adopt a combined approach in sentencing.  As explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013, there are three means of cross-checking whether a sentence is manifestly inadequate, namely, the absurdity test, the ratio test and the conversion test. 

15.  In the present case, the absurdity test will result in an overall starting point of about 5 years and 3 months (assuming all the narcotics to be cocaine) or 7 years and 2 months (assuming all the narcotics to be “ice”); whereas the ratio test will lead to a starting point of about 6 years and 2 months.  On the other hand, the conversion test will yield a starting point of about 5 years and 11 months (converting all the narcotics to cocaine) or 6 years and 6 months (converting all the narcotics to “ice”).  In the circumstances of this case, I find the conversion test to be the most appropriate one to adopt in sentencing the Defendant but it may be difficult to decide whether to convert all the narcotics to cocaine or “ice” when there is not much difference in their quantities.  I shall therefore take a midway course to use a term of 6 years and 2 months’ imprisonment as the notional starting point in sentencing the 1^st charge. 

16.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the Defendant based upon the amended Summary of Facts before the Court.  In short, the dangerous drugs were found in the Defendant’s handbag when she was travelling in a taxi.  The Defendant made no admission in the amended Summary of Facts to be an actual trafficker.  Mr. Ching invited the Court to regard the Defendant as a courier of the dangerous drugs in the present case.

17.  The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band the Defendant should come.  As invited by Mr. Ching, I find the Defendant’s role to be that of a courier. 

18.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  It is an aggravating factor for an accused to traffic in more than one type of dangerous drugs “because in such a situation the trafficker is able to cater to a far wider market than the trafficker in only one kind of drug.” (See HKSAR v Yim Hung Lui Ricky, CACC 266/2011, and HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644). I will enhance the starting point of 6 years and 2 months by 6 months, taking it to 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  As the Defendant is a repeated offender in trafficking, I shall further enhance the starting point by 4 months, bringing it to 7 years’ imprisonment.

19.  The fifth step is to take into account the mitigating factors, if any.  As accepted by Mr. Ching, given the seriousness of the trafficking offence, the only real mitigating factor in the Defendant’s case is her guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, she is entitled to a full one-third discount. That brings the sentence down from 7 years to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for the 1^st charge.

20.  Turning now to the 2^nd charge, the quantity of dangerous drug that the Defendant believed she was trafficking was 73.1 grammes of purported ketamine.  Based on that quantity, had the substance been ketamine, a notional starting point of 6 years and 3 months would have been appropriate.  Applying the approach in Li Oi Yee (supra) and Cheng Ling Ling (supra), I will accord a reduction in recognition of the fact that the actus reus brought with it no harm.  I therefore would use a notional starting point of 3 years for the 2^nd charge, to be discounted by one-third by virtue of her guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment for the 2^nd charge.  

21.  Taking into account the totality principle, I shall order 4 months of the 2^nd charge to be served consecutively with the sentence for the 1^st charge, making a total sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment. 

22.  Lastly, I consider these sentences fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offences and the Defendant.  Accordingly, the Defendant is sentenced to a total term of imprisonment for 5 years.