HKSAR v. LO KING MING

HCCC 153/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1414

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 153 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of “trafficking in a dangerous drug” and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 24 April 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, the defendant confirmed his plea and his admission to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of the charge state that on the 25^th day of April 2023, outside No. 46 Temple Street, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 55.6 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 55.6 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as the ‘Ice’ drug). 

3.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows.  At about 1.26 am on 25 April 2023, PW1 found that the defendant was acting in a suspicious manner outside No. 46 Temple Street, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, in Hong Kong.  The defendant was intercepted by PW1.  Upon a body search, two transparent resealable plastic bags containing a total of 55.6 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 55.6 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’ (Exhibits 1 and 2)  were found between the underpants and the waist of the defendant.  The Government Chemist has confirmed the aforesaid narcotic content. 

4.  Under caution at the scene, the defendant claimed that the two packets of things (Exhibits 1 and 2)  were for self-consumption.  At the time of arrest, the defendant had five mobile phones with him. 

5.  A house search was later conducted at the defendant’s residence in Kwun Tong.  Nothing irregular was found. 

6.  Under caution at the video-recorded interview, the defendant said that:

(1)  Exhibits 1 to 2 were ‘Ice’;

(2)  He paid approximately HK$10,000 for Exhibits 1 and 2 and he earned the said sum by driving taxi;

(3)  He had the habit of consuming drugs and Exhibits 1 to 2 were for his one-month consumption;

(4)  He explained that the five mobile phones were for work purpose (as a taxi driver); and

(5)  He refused to disclose why he was at Temple Street.

7.  The estimated street value of the drug found on the defendant was HK$39,476 in April 2023. 

8.  The defendant now expressly admits that at the material time, he unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 55.6 grammes of ‘Ice’. 

9.  Regarding the personal background of the defendant, the defendant is 53 years of age.  He is divorced.  He has a daughter aged 28.  The defendant lived with his parents and his daughter.  Unfortunately, his father passed away from illness in July 2024.  The defendant’s younger sister and brother lived apart from the family. The defendant maintains a harmonious relationship with his family.  The defendant is said to have been diagnosed with liver cirrhosis. 

10.  The defendant studied up to Secondary Form 3.  He then joined the workforce working as a taxi driver, earning around HK$20,000 per month. 

11.  The defendant has many previous convictions, eight of which are related to drugs.  One of those is for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  That was recorded in September 2015, where the defendant was sentenced to 10 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. 

12.  The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.  The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band (or bracket)  applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guidelines the defendant comes.  It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant.  The fourth step is to consider aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”. The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced sentence”. 

13.  Regarding the first step, for 55.60 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the applicable guideline tariff band is that of 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment: see HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, at paragraph 66. 

14.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, I accept that the defendant was a courier of the dangerous drug. 

15.  Third, for 55.60 grammes of ‘Ice’, an arithmetical approach towards the guidelines would lead to a “notional sentence after trial” of 10 years and 0.5 month’s imprisonment. From my finding of the defendant’s role and culpability at step 2 above, I see no reason for enhancing the notional sentence after trial beyond 10 years and 0.5 month. 

16.  Fourth, I am required to consider any aggravating factors, which would go to enhance the “notional sentence after trial” identified under step 3.  There is one such aggravating feature in the present case.  That concerns the defendant’s previous conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs, which is an accepted factor justifying an enhancement of sentence under step 4.  For this factor, I would enhance the starting point by 6 months, taking it to 10 years and 6.5 months’ imprisonment. 

17.  Fifth, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is his timely plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount. 

18.  Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reduced to 7 years’ imprisonment. 

19.  Finally, I consider that a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of the defendant. 

20.  The defendant is accordingly sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment.