HKSAR v. TANG KA KIT

CACC 151/2024 [2025] HKCA 357 On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 1934

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 151 OF 2024 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 374 OF 2023) ___

HKSAR Respondent v Tang Ka-kit (鄧嘉杰) Applicant ___ Before: Hon Zervos JA in Court Date of Hearing: 15 April 2025 Date of Judgment: 15 April 2025 ____

J U D G M E N T ____ On 16 November 2023, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely 23.41 grammes of a solid containing 19.71 grammes of cocaine and 33.4 grammes of a solid containing 28.88 grammes of ketamine, and one count of dangerous driving. On 25 June 2024, the applicant appeared before Toh J (the judge) for sentencing. After giving a one third discount for the applicant’s guilty pleas on the starting points for each offence, the judge sentenced him to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment on Count 1 and 2 years’ imprisonment on Count 2, which she ordered to be run consecutively. This resulted in a total sentence of 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. She also ordered that the applicant be disqualified from holding a driving licence for 3 years. On 17 July 2024, the applicant filed a notice of application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The sole ground of appeal advanced by the applicant was that the sentence for the dangerous driving offence was excessive. The applicant appears in person, having had legal aid refused. Both offences took place on 25 June 2021, when police officers approached the applicant for inquiries. At the time, he was seated in the driving seat of a private vehicle. After the police officers identified themselves to the applicant, he drove off at high speed and attempted to overtake two

buses, resulting in scratching the right side of one bus and crashing into the rear end of the other bus. The applicant fled but was eventually subdued by the police officers. A search of the private vehicle uncovered the drugs in question, which were contained in 248 resealable plastic bags. The applicant was the holder of a probationary driving licence, which had expired on 8 January 2021. As the judge rightly observed in respect of the drug trafficking offence, the applicant’s role was more than a mere courier as he had a large quantity of packets of the drugs in question ready for sale or distribution. He also had a previous conviction for drug trafficking. It is understandable that the applicant does not complain about the sentence for this offence. The applicant’s complaint in respect of his sentence for the other offence of dangerous driving is without merit. As the judge also rightly observed, this was a separate offence that involved him driving a vehicle without a valid driving licence and in circumstances where it was fortuitous that the occupants of the buses and the police officers were not injured as a result of his dangerous driving. It was a significant sentence and one that was justly imposed on him. A person who drives a vehicle dangerously in the course of committing a crime and in an effort to avoid apprehension, thereby endangering the lives of innocent

road users and the police officers involved, can expect to be punished severely. The judge treated the trafficking in dangerous drugs and the dangerous driving as separate offences and did not inappropriately duplicate factors when passing sentence for each offence. There was no issue of “double counting” of aggravating factors when sentencing the applicant. It was appropriate in the circumstances that the sentences for these two offences be ordered to run consecutively. The application is accordingly refused. The applicant is reminded that he has the right to renew his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but he is also informed that the Court has the power to order the loss of any time which he has served in custody pending his appeal, if it were to come to the view that there was no justification for the renewal of the application. (Kevin Zervos) Justice of Appeal Ms Angela Wong, SPP, of Department of Justice, for the respondent The applicant appeared in person