HKSAR v. LAU WAI HOI

HCCC 405/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 405 OF 2025

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty in the lower court to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 19.5 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 19.5 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The facts were that in the early hours of the morning on 15 April, the defendant was hit by a private car in Tai Po, New Territories. And the passengers in a taxi found the defendant lying on the ground and his shoulder bag was about six inches from his head.

So as the defendant appeared to be in pain, police officers were summoned and subsequently ambulance was dispatched to the scene. The defendant’s shoulder bag was searched and inside the bag was found the defendant’s identity document and the dangerous drug which is the subject matter of the charge.

The defendant was then arrested and he was sent to hospital and subsequently released on bail. But after his discharge he failed to report to the police and subsequently about two months later, the defendant was arrested.

And initially in the video-recorded interview, the defendant said that he had no knowledge of the dangerous drug seized and the exhibit seized was sent for DNA analysis, and police also found the CCTV camera which recorded the accident.

The estimated street value of the dangerous drug seized was in the region of $9,731.

The defendant is aged 49 and has a criminal record in Hong Kong, mainly in the past in 2010 he had possession of dangerous drugs for which he was sent to DATC. And then he was also charged with possession in 2011 for which he was fined and again in 2014 for possession of utensils, equipment fit for smoking, he was given probation. And in 2015 again he was fined for possession of dangerous drugs. And although his previous convictions was up to 2020, his last conviction for drugs was in 2015.

In mitigation, Mr Wong has set out in detail the family circumstances of the defendant and that he gives money to support his parents and he was a scaffolding worker and had suffered injuries after falling from a height during work. And due to the injury, he was on sick leave for two years and only received one-fifth of his monthly salary. Eventually, the defendant received compensation for his injuries.

It is submitted by Mr Wong that the defendant had been a drug addict for some 27 years and his drug of choice was ‘Ice’ or methamphetamine hydrochloride. And Mr Wong submitted that at the time of the accident, he had just bought the drugs from a dealer in Kwong Fuk Estate and he maintains that the ‘Ice’ was mainly or substantially for his own consumption.

The original date set for plea and sentence, we adjourned it at the request of the defence for the defence to obtain the medical report of the defendant. And it is without a doubt that the defendant did suffer serious injury and that he had residual pain. And so Mr Wong submitted that because of the pain, he therefore had to take the drugs in order to relieve the pain.

The tariff, as Mr Wong correctly pointed out, is set out in the guidelines laid down by the recent Court of Appeal decision in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.

For 19.5 grammes of ‘Ice’, it falls within the 10 to 70 grammes bracket and would merit a guideline sentence after trial of 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment. And Mr Wong has correctly calculated that the starting point in this case for this amount would be around 7 years and 7 months.

As also submitted by Mr Wong, the defendant does not wish to give evidence in relation to the amount of drugs he uses. He contends that he uses up to sometimes five grammes a day but that is without any evidence or justification. The defendant claims that he intended to consume a substantial portion of the drugs and to share the remainder with his friends.

As it has already been said by many judges that unless the defendant calls evidence, the judge can only give account of the use by the defendant of the amount of drugs in a reasonable way and cannot in any event, without evidence to support, say that a substantial portion of the drugs were for his own consumption.

Now, of course the starting point as I have said is in the region of 7 years and 7 months. I will put the starting point at 7½ years. I will give the defendant the full one‑third discount for his plea. And I will also discount it, the sentence by a further 10 per cent which is about 9 months, for the drugs for his own consumption.

I do note that the defendant in mitigation did say that he intended to consume a substantial portion of the drugs and to share the remainder with his friends. So that would mean that there is some drugs which would be distributed outwards.

So the sentence of 7½ years will be deducted by 30 months to reflect the one-third discount, deducted by 9 months to reflect the self-use and the sentence is reduced to 4 years and 3 months.