Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing guidelines for ketamine

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 2026

HKSAR v. LAU FUN

Citation

[2026] HKCA 402
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC226/2022

The WhatsApp messages were relevant and admissible as evidence going to the appellant’s knowledge of the specific consignment collected on 27 November; they did not disclose separate uncharged offences or merely propensity evidence; the trial judge properly directed the jury to limit use of the messages to establishing knowledge, and no material irregularity or unfairness occurred—therefore the conviction is upheld.
16 Jan 2014

HKSAR v. CHOI HANG KEI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOI HANG KEI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC270/2013

The judge materially erred by using mixture weights rather than narcotic content; recalculation gives ketamine narcotic content 1,028.84g which supports a 14-year starting point (reduced to 13 years 6 months overall because some ketamine in Count 2 justified mitigation for self-consumption), applying one-third discount yields an overall sentence of 9 years. Appeal allowed; original sentences quashed and substituted accordingly.
5 Jul 2012

HKSAR v. ZHANG SAIQIONG

Citation

HKSAR v. ZHANG SAIQIONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC333/2011

The judge correctly identified the tariff range for ketamine, adopted a 12.5 year starting point, properly applied a 6 month enhancement for the international element, afforded the maximum one‑third guilty plea discount plus two months for character, resulting in an 8.5 year sentence which was not excessive or wrong in principle; the application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.
2 Sept 2011

HKSAR v. NG SIU KAM

Citation

HKSAR v. NG SIU KAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC474/2009

The Court held the conviction was safe: the trial judge adequately directed the jury to approach the accomplice's evidence with caution and did not wrongly prejudice the defence when addressing conflicts between Wong and police evidence; no Turnbull direction was required given the circumstances; sentencing was excessive and was reduced by the Court from 24 to 20 years based on an appropriate starting point (16 years) plus four years for aggravating factors (recruiter/paymaster role, duration and importation).

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LAU FUN

HKSAR v. CHOI HANG KEI

HKSAR v. ZHANG SAIQIONG

HKSAR v. NG SIU KAM