HKSAR v. KAM CHEUK LAAM, MYRON

HCCC 51/2025

[2026]HKCFI 582

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 51 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug involving 3,711.5 grammes of ketamine.

In the evening of 13 March 2023, police officers went to Kui On House, Wo Lok Estate, Kwun Tong, to investigate a child abuse case. When a team departed Kui On House at around 8.43 pm, the defendant was spotted to be carrying two bags and acting in a furtive manner on the platform of 3rd Floor of Kui On House near the entrance of the building.

The defendant was then intercepted by the police officers for inquiry. Upon the search of the two bags carried by the defendant, the police found 13 resealable plastic bags containing white powder which were later found to be a solid of 6,692 grammes containing 3,711.5 grammes of ketamine.

At the time of arrest, the defendant was in possession of one mobile phone and cash of HK$203. Under caution, the defendant said that he was paid to deliver the ketamine as he owed money to other people.

In a subsequent cautioned video-recorded interview, the defendant said, amongst other things, that he was recruited by one “Ma Chai” to deliver the drugs to Kui On House for a reward of HK$30,000. When he arrived at Kui On House, he encountered the police and was arrested.

The estimated street value of the drugs is HK$2,911,000.

Background and Mitigation

The defendant is now 25 years old and he was 22 years old at the time of the offence. The defendant’s mother left the family when he was 1 year old. The defendant grew up under the care of his paternal grandmother. The defendant has six other paternal half-siblings aged from 3 to 20, all living together at his grandmother’s public housing unit under the care of his grandmother.

The defendant attained Form 6 level of education in Hong Kong. He immediately joined the workforce after high school in order to support his family.

Counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant had been working multiple jobs at the same time to support the family as the sole breadwinner, as the defendant’s father was irresponsible to the family.

Prior to the offence, the defendant had worked in various jobs such as a driver in a transportation company, a coffee shop staff, a logistics worker and a bartender. Since 2022 and until his arrest the defendant had also taken part in dog handling training held by the YMCA so as to start a new career in the industry.

As to the circumstances of the offence, counsel for the defendant submitted that at the time of the offence the defendant’s jobs were severely affected by the pandemic and he had to rely on borrowing from financial institutions to support his family. In the end, the defendant could not make ends meet and decided to deliver drugs for “Ma Chai”.

I have read and taken into account the nine mitigating letters submitted by the defendant himself, his family members, his Kung Fu master who had known him for 16 years, his former employers as well as the captain of the youth outreach social work team of YMCA.

Counsel for the defendant also submitted that while the defendant had been remanded in jail custody, he has further equipped himself by completing a foundation certificate in presentation software application. I accept that the defendant was a responsible and resourceful young man who did everything he could to support his family and only succumbed to delivering drugs for reward as a result of his dire financial situation.

The defendant had fully cooperated with the police after his arrest and also pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. I accept that the defendant is truly remorseful for his conduct. The defendant has no prior criminal conviction.

Sentencing Considerations

The sentencing approach in trafficking cases is set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKLRD 1186. I therefore follow the six-step sentencing approach set out in Yusuph.

The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band or bracket applicable to the quantity of drug concerned. The present case concerns 3,711.5 grammes of ketamine. For trafficking in ketamine that amounts to 3,000 grammes or over, the sentencing tariffs had been set out in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 and further elaborated in HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin and Another [2013] 1 HKLRD 627.

In Hii Siew Cheng, the Court of Appeal held that for trafficking in ketamine over 1,000 grammes, the starting point would be 14 years upwards. In Sin Chung Kin, the Court of Appeal further held that:

“If more than 3,000 grammes of ketamine is involved the starting point can exceed 20 years although the increase in sentence should not be proportional to the increase in the drug quantity.”

The second step is to consider the role and culpability of the defendant. On the evidence there is nothing to suggest that the defendant had any further role beyond the culpability of an ordinary courier acting under the instructions of “Ma Chai”.

Having considered the circumstances and role of the defendant and the amount of drugs in question, I consider that a starting point of 20 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate.

The main mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s timely guilty plea. He is entitled to a one-third discount from the starting point of 20 years’ imprisonment which leads to a sentence of 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

As to the defendant’s personal circumstances, I accept that the defendant has shown genuine remorse and has worked hard to take care of his family before the present offence but this does not allow for any additional sentencing discount.

As the Court of Appeal stated in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 at paragraph 32:

“The serious harm that dangerous drugs causes to society generally dictates that meaningful mitigation, apart from the plea of guilty, is rarely available. The message must be consistently delivered, even to the vulnerable such as the relatively young and those who say they need money whether for themselves or for the benefit of family members who are ill that the vast majority of vulnerable people do not succumb to pressure and do not resolve their problems by engaging in this illicit and dreadful trade.”

I sentence you to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.