The story
Selling two cannabis cigarettes containing 0.24 g brought Chor Lui two months in prison. On 3 August 2001, Hong Kong’s High Court rejected his appeal: the amount was small, but the judge considered the commercial sale in a discotheque and his previous drug convictions serious.[1]
An undercover customer paid HK$30
Chor was 23 when sentenced. According to the admitted facts, another man approached him inside a New Territories discotheque with a customer, who was an undercover police officer. She asked the price, and Chor sold her two hand-rolled cigarettes for HK$30, returning change from a marked HK$100 note.[1]
His lawyer said he supported his parents and had taken decoration work after his arrest. In mitigation, the court was told the discotheque had offered him HK$400 a day to sell drugs and that he had begun that day.[1]
The court distinguished a sale from possession
The magistrate started at three months and reduced the sentence by one third for Chor’s guilty plea. He rejected a suspended sentence despite a favourable background report and family support. Chor had two previous drug-possession convictions and a conviction for wounding.[1]
On appeal, the judge stressed that selling for profit at a venue frequented by young people differed from an unpaid exchange between friends. He also rejected comparison with a co-defendant who received community service for simple possession: that was a different offence.[1]
Herbal cannabis still had a lower benchmark
The court applied the approach developed in the 1995 sentencing review, which allowed adjustments for the lower THC concentrations then found in herbal cannabis compared with resin.[2]
The appeal judge reasoned that the resin guideline of up to sixteen months below 2 kg suggested a four-month benchmark for herbal cannabis at the lowest band. Even so, two months after a guilty plea remained within the magistrate’s discretion. The appeal was dismissed.[1]
Later cases changed the comparison
A year earlier, Phung Hai had won a reduction from six months to two for possessing 1.18 g. That case involved possession and earlier convictions; Chor’s involved an admitted commercial sale.[3]
In January 2023, the Court of Appeal placed herbal cannabis and resin on the same trafficking scale after accepting evidence that their THC concentrations had converged. The Hong Kong profile describes the later rules on possession, supply and growing.[4]
Listed for context. No score change is recorded for Hong Kong here.
References
- Hong Kong High Court — HKSAR v Chor Lui, 3 August 2001HCMA 535/2001, paragraphs 1–18; two cigarettes, commercial sale, earlier convictions, guideline discussion and dismissed appealarchived
- Hong Kong Court of Appeal — R v Tuen Shui Ming and another, 9 June 1995CAAR 12/1994; paragraphs 1–4, 10–20; total weight, low THC, revised tariff and sentencesarchived
- Hong Kong High Court — HKSAR v Phung Hai, 17 February 2000HCMA 25/2000, paragraphs 1–4; 1.18 grammes of cannabis, previous convictions and reduction to two monthsarchived
- Hong Kong Court of Appeal — HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi and Dang Hung Ngoc, 20 January 2023CACC 145 and 217/2019; paragraphs 1–29 and 94–109: case facts, trafficking/cultivation tariffs, individual culpability and dismissalsarchived
Checked. The date and the event were compared with a source that was read.