HKSAR v. LAI CHI NAM

HCCC 271/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 271 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of “trafficking in dangerous drugs” and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 11 August 2025. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, he confirmed his plea and his admission to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of the charge state that on 25 October 2024, at Room D, 4th Floor, No. 520 Castle Peak Road, Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 1,049.62 grammes of a solid containing 837.09 grammes of ketamine and 104 grammes of a solid containing 78.60 grammes of cocaine and 5.82 grammes of ketamine.  

3.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows.  At about 1806 hours on 25 October 2024, the police saw the defendant acting suspiciously as he was entering a building at No. 520 Castle Peak Road in Sham Shui Po (“the Building”).  Police intercepted the defendant at the Ground Floor lobby.  

4.  At the time of arrest, one mobile phone and three keys were found on the defendant.  The defendant was taken to Room D on the 4th Floor of the Building for a search, where it was said to be his residence.  Police opened the wooden door of Room D with the key found on the defendant.  Upon search, the police found a pink basket, a blue paper box and a transparent plastic box on the bed inside Room D.  

5.  10 plastic bags of a total of 9.62 grammes of a solid containing 8.09 grammes of ketamine, some empty transparent resealable plastic bags, an electronic scale and two spoons were found inside the pink basket.  One plastic bag containing, inter alia, 78.6 grammes of cocaine and 5.82 grammes of ketamine were found inside the blue paper box.  Inside the transparent plastic box, there were five plastic bags, four of them contained a total of 1.04 kilogrammes of a solid containing 829 grammes of ketamine.  

6.  The police arrested the defendant for trafficking in dangerous drugs in connection with the items found inside Room D.  Under caution, the defendant remained silent.  At the subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant stated as follows:  

(1) Ah Keung, whom he met on 23 October 2024 at an amusement game centre, knew that he was jobless and in debt, introduced him to a job of packing dangerous drugs including ketamine and cocaine;

(2) At around 8 pm on 23 October 2024, Ah Keung called him on his mobile phone and told him that the ketamine and cocaine would be hidden inside a hole behind a wooden plank on the 3rd Floor staircase of the Building. Sometime between 9 to 10 pm, Ah Keung called him again and told him that he could pick up the ketamine and cocaine. Ah Keung also provided him with the electronic scale and empty resealable plastic bags;

(3) Ah Keung instructed him to pack the ketamine and cocaine into one gramme per pack. He would be given HK$10,000 as a reward. He did not have the means of contact of Ah Keung;

(4) Room D on the 4th Floor of the Building were rented by his girlfriend, Lau. Lau did not know anything about the drugs;

(5) The drugs found inside the flat were shown to him and he admitted that they included, inter alia, “Coke” and “K Jai”.

7.  The estimated street value of the ketamine found in Room D was HK$485,974.  The estimated street value of the mixture of cocaine and ketamine found in Room D was respectively HK$88,920 (cocaine powder) or HK$126,256 (crack cocaine) and HK$48,152 (ketamine).  

8.  The defendant now admits and accepts that at the material time, he unlawfully trafficked in all the dangerous drugs seized. 

9.  As to the personal background of the defendant, he was born in Hong Kong in November 1974 and is now 51 years old.  He was aged 49 at the time of the offence in October 2024.  He was divorced in 2012.  He has a daughter now aged 19 who is living with his former wife.  The defendant has a younger brother who lives with the defendant’s mother and a married sister who lives apart.  His parents divorced when he was aged 13. 

10.  He has been living with his mother (aged 73) and his younger brother after his divorce in 2012, but later changed to live with his girlfriend.  He was educated in Hong Kong up to Secondary Form 3 level and he had previously worked as a locker attendant at a spa, but was unemployed at the time of his arrest.  

11.  It can be seen from his criminal record that on two occasions in respectively 1994 and 2015, the defendant committed a total of three offences, that is theft, criminal damage and common assault, for which he was given a fine and a suspended sentence of 10 days’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.  All three offences were committed more than 10 years ago and were unrelated to drug trafficking or possession.  

12.  The defendant accepts that he had been arrested in 2021 and was on police bail for a case of conspiracy to defraud, which was in place when the defendant committed the present offence in October 2024, that is some three years thereafter.  It is therefore not disputed by the defence that the defendant committed the present offence whilst on police bail for another case.  

13.  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 the evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guideline 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 the aggravating factors which would 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 would 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”. 

14.  Regarding the first step, the task is to identify the appropriate range applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned.  The narcotic contents of the total quantity of dangerous drugs seized in this case were 78.60 grammes of cocaine and 842.91 grammes of ketamine.  In HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the guideline bracket for a quantity of 78.60 grammes of cocaine is 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment.  According to Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the guideline bracket for a quantity of 842.91 grammes of ketamine is 12 to 14 years’ imprisonment.  

15.  As two different kinds of drugs were involved with a combined weight of 921.51 grammes, in order to assist me in identifying the overall starting point of the offence, the “Absurdity Test”, “Ratio Test” and “Conversion Test” as explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013 (Judgment dated 8 April 2014) have been conducted with the following results: 17 years and 8.2 months under the Absurdity Test; 13 years and 11.5 months under the Ratio Test; and 14 years and 3.2 months under the Conversion Test.  

16.  Having considered the above results in the round and taking into account that more than one type of dangerous drugs is involved, I consider that the starting point of 14 years and 5 months would be appropriate in the present case.  This is purely based on the quantity and types of drugs involved, before any consideration of the defendant’s role in the offence. 

17.  Second, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, my assessment should be based upon the evidence before the court, whether by admission or by direct or circumstantial evidence: see Herry Jane Yusuph, supra, at paragraphs 58 and 61.  In this regard, I am prepared to accept that the defendant acted as a storekeeper of the drugs, without engaging in actual or direct trafficking of the same.  

18.  Third, in view of my aforesaid finding of the defendant’s role and culpability, I consider that a sentence of 14 years and 5 months’ imprisonment would be the appropriate “notional sentence after trial” for the offence in question. 

19.  Fourth, I consider that there is one aggravating feature which would enhance the “notional sentence after trial”.  According to the Court of Appeal’s decision in HKSAR v Wong Yun Fat [2017] 4 HKLRD 59, the fact that the defendant committed the present offence whilst on police bail is an aggravating factor.  At paragraph 48, McWalters JA said this: 

“It is clear from the authorities that even if the bail is only police bail the fact that the bailed person committed an offence whilst on bail is still to be regarded as an aggravating factor. The issue is not whether the sentence should be enhanced but, rather, by how much it should be enhanced.”

20.  In considering that question, I take into account the defendant’s submissions that first, unlike the situation in Wong Yun Fat, the bailed offence (ie, conspiracy to defraud) is of a different nature from the offence in this case (ie, drug trafficking); and second, as of today, some four years after he was put on police bail, no charge has been laid in respect of the conspiracy case. 

21.  Taking into account all the relevant circumstances, I would enhance the “notional sentence after trial” by 3 months, taking it to 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

22.  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.  Accordingly, the defendant’s overall sentence is reduced to 9 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

23.  Finally, I consider that an overall sentence of 9 years and 9 months’ imprisonment is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of this case and in the circumstances of the defendant.