HKSAR v. ZHUANG SHIYU AND ANOTHER

HCCC 14/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3795

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 14 OF 2026

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  There are two defendants in this case.

2.  The 1^st Defendant (D1) pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to three charges: Counts 1 and 3 for trafficking in dangerous drugs[1]; and Count 2 for manufacturing of a dangerous drug[2], he was committed, on 26^th June 2023, to the Court of First Instance for sentence.  D1 confirmed his pleas and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and his convictions were duly recorded.

3.  The 2^nd Defendant (D2) pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to 2 charges: Count 2 for manufacturing of a dangerous drug (jointly charged with D1) and Count 3 of trafficking in a dangerous drug (jointly charged with D1), and he was committed, on 8^th January 2026, to the Court of First Instance for sentence.  D2 also confirmed his plea and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and his conviction was duly recorded. 

4.  The Particulars of the charges are as follows:

(1) Charge 1 against D1 alleged that D1 on the 20 December 2022, at the lift lobby of 20th Floor, H Cube, No. 118 Yeung Uk Road, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 285 grammes of a solid containing 266 grammes of cocaine.

(2) Charge 2 against D1 and D2 alleged that D1 and D2, on or about 20 December, 2022, at Room 2002, 20th Floor, H Cube, No. 118 Yeung Uk Road, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, in Hong Kong, unlawfully manufactured a dangerous drug, namely, cocaine.

(3) Charge 3 against D1 and D2 alleged that D1 and D2, on 20 December 2022, at Room 2002, 20th Floor, H Cube, No. 118 Yeung Uk Road, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 2,857.01 grammes of a solid containing 2,634 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride, 918.22 grammes of a solid containing 823.95 grammes of cocaine, and 2.23 grammes of a solid containing 1.55 grammes of ketamine and 0.22 gramme of cocaine.

FACTS

5.  The facts of the case that the defendants have admitted can be summarized as follows for the present purpose.

6.  On 20 December 2022, during an operation, police officers laid ambush outside a flat at 20/F, H-Cube, 118 Yeung Uk Road, Tsuen Wan, New Territories (hereinafter “the Flat”). At around 6:35 pm, they saw D1 leaving the flat and wascarrying a paper bag.

7.  Upon interception and search of D1 at the lift lobby, police found inside the paper bag 13 plastic bags containing 285 g of a solid 266 g of cocaine.  This is the subject of Charge 1.

8.  By a search warrant, the police then attempted to enter the Flat using one of the keys seized from D1 but were unable to do so.  They then heard sounds inside the flat and thus they broke the door by force to gain entry.

9.  Inside the Flat, they saw D2, who was approaching the window.  D2 was immediately subdued despite his struggle. Police seized a set of keys (which looked identical to those found on D1) and the building'sresidence card on D2.

10.  The Flat was a one-bedroom flat with a kitchen and a toilet.  Upon search, officers found cocaine and manufacturing apparatus which contained either small amount of cocaine or traces of it, predominantly in the living room. Police seized the following items and some items were later opined by Government Chemist to be involved in drug manufacturing put in [square bracket] below:

In the living room on a table by the window

(1) A metal pot and a spoon scale (containing 0.56 grammes of a solid containing 0.12 grammes of cocaine) and an induction stove (containing 0.09 grammes of a solid containing cocaine) [opined to be the heat source];

(2) Two boxes of 2.09 kilogrammes baking soda;

(3) A bag of 291 grammes of powder containing phenacetin (a part-1 poison) [common adulterant in cocaine];

(4) A metal container containing 0.65 grammes of a powder containingphenacetin;

(5) Two pair of gloves (containing traces of cocaine);

(6) Two sealing machines;

(7) Spoons and wooden stick (containing a total of 0.08 grammes of a solid containing cocaine);

(8) Seven metal containers (under the table) containing a total of 0.89 grammes of a solid containing 0.13 grammes of cocaine;

(9) 13 paper bags and numerous resealable plastic bags;

In the living room on a reading table by the sofa

(10) A paper bag containing 5 bags of solid containing a total of 91.6g of a solid containing 84.7 grammes of cocaine [the final product];

(11) A paper bag containing 14 bags containing a total of 163.32 of solid containing 147.22 grammes of cocaine and 1.55 grammes of ketamine [the final product];

(12) Three electronic scales, one of which containing 0.01 grammes of a solid containing cocaine hydrochloride;

(13) One container, one plastic tray and one metal forceps containing traces of a solid containing cocaine;

(14) One pair of scissors containing traces of a solid containing cocaine;

(15) One plastic bag containing 34 bags containing a total of 664 grammes of solid containing 592 grammes of cocaine [the final product];

(16) Three plastic bags containing a total of 2,857 grammes of a solid containing 2,637grammes of cocaine hydrochloride [opined to be the starting material];

(17) A plastic bag containing 101 grammes of baking soda.

In the drawers of the reading table

(18) Piles of empty resealable plastic bags;

(19) Lease and estate agent agreements executed by Dl, and a utilitybill of the flat issued to Dl by his name.

11.  Upon arrest and under caution at the scene: -

(1) Dl said he was promised a HK$50,000 reward for cooking and packaging cocaine, but has yet received the money;

(2) Whilst D2 admitted that he was hired by Dl to help cooking and packaging the cocaine.

12.  In the expert opinion of Government Chemist, from the setup and seizures at the scene, this was a manufacture of "'cocaine case" (i.e. crack cocaine) from cocaine hydrochloride, and the use of phenacetin as an adulterant had taken place in the Flat.  The process was by mixing sodium bicarbonate (i.e. baking soda) with water and by adding adulterant such as a phenacetin,and then by heating the solution up.  This is the subject of Counts 2 and 3.

13.  D1 signed the lease for the Flat which began on 6 November 2022 with a monthly rent of HK$14,000.

14.  The estimated street values of the seized drugs were as follows:

(1) On D1: Cocaine: HK$236,265 (at HK$829/gramme for powder) and HK$295,830 (at HK$1,038/gramme for crack cocaine);

(2) In the Flat: (i) Cocaine: HK$761,204 (at HK$829/gramme for powder) and HK$953,112 (at HK$1,038/gramme for crack cocaine); and (ii) Cocaine hydrochloride: HK$2,368,461 (at HK$ 829/gramme).

15.  By their admissions to the Summary of Facts, both defendants had accepted that, at all materials times, they manufactured dangerous drugs and unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs subject to their respective charges.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

16.  D1 has a clear record in Hong Kong.

17.  D2 has one previous conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2021 for which he was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.

DEFENDANTS’ BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

D1

18.  Dl was born on 17 April 2000. He is now 26 years old. At the time of the offences in 2022, D was 22 years old. D was educated up to secondary form 2 in the mainland.

19.  It is stated in the Defence mitigation submissions that D1 was divorced and he came to Hong Kong in 2014.  Before the arrest, D1 worked as a construction site worker. D1's father andmother are now over 50 and he was recently divorced in 2025.  That is the extent of the background.

D2

20.  D2 is aged 30 and was born and broughtup in Hong Kong.

21.  It is stated in the Defence mitigation submissions that D2 is single and living with his father and one elder brother. Hismother had passed away when he was young.

22.  D2 was educated up to Form 3 and had an occupation of part-time delivery worker at time of offence.

23.  For his previous conviction for trafficking in Dangerous Drugs, he was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment and discharged in December 2021.

24.  It is said in his mitigation D2 committed the offence because it was hard for him to find a job, he was lured to help D1 in the cooking and packaging of the drug to earn quick money.  Therefore, his role was secondary to D1.  He only helped in the cooking and packaging but nothing else.

SENTENCING

25.  As explained in HKSAR v Au Chun Wah [2026] HKCA 592 at §40: “it would normally be prudent to assess the seriousness of the manufacturing offence first and make it the anchor of the sentence before considering sentence for the accompanying offence(s) of trafficking. By doing so, the sentencing court will run less of a risk of double-counting the manufacturing element.”

26.  Therefore, I shall deal with Count 2 against both defendants first.

27.  Applying the principles laid down in HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2022] 3 HKLRD 408 §§30-32.  The starting point for drug manufacturing offences should not necessarily be linked to the starting point for drug trafficking offences with the same quantity of drugs and there should be no fixed proportion between the two.  But there is no doubt that sentences for drug manufacturing offences are heavier than those of drug trafficking offences involving the same quantity of drugs.

28.  The starting point for manufacturing offences must be based on the overall circumstances of individual cases.  The quantity seized at the manufacturing workshop must be a relevant factor as that showed, to some extent, its size and productivity, and reflected the seriousness of the offence.  Further, the length of time the workshop had operated, its scale and productivity, the quantity and standard of manufacturing paraphernalia, the extent of the defendants’ participation and role were all important factors.

29.  In this case, as revealed by the summary of facts, the scale of the workshop does not appear to be large.  It comprises of a small one-bedroom flat.  The paraphernalia and tools which the experts opined were used for the manufacturing process, included a metal pot, spoon scale and an induction stove.  The other apparatus included several metal containers, two sealing machine and several electronic scales.  I agree with Mr Yuen (counsel for D2)’s observations, that these apparatuses were rather basic and unsophisticated as opposed to “high standard” manufacturing paraphernalia.  The Flat itself was a simple domestic premises and was not a sophisticated workshop with considerable scale and productivity.

30.  As fairly accepted by Mr Yuen, this was not a “one-off” manufacturing act.  It was clearly “continuous” as the evidence points to the commencement of the lease from 6 November 2022, which is one and a half month prior to the police raid of the Flat.  Mr Yuen acknowledged that had there been no police raid, the operation would go on (para.30 of D2’s written mitigation).  Although the duration of the operation of this workshop was not as lengthy as that of Cheng Chi Wai.  However, as acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in Cheng Chi Wai §41, the process of manufacturing “crack cocaine” is simple and fast, and information shows that offenders are able to manufacture “crack cocaine” multiple times within the space of 2½ hours.

31.  As pointed out by counsel for D1, Mr Lau, the total weight of cocaine involved under Charge 3 is 2,634g + 823.95g + 0.22g = 3,458.17g.  This falls under the “20 to 24 years” band.  On a purely arithmetical approach this will attract a starting point of 22 years and 2 months’ imprisonment under the relevant guideline band. 

32.  It is also fair to point out though, that, in HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777, which involved a much higher quantity of cocaine hydrochloride found in the workshop (the total cocaine hydrochloride amounted to over 22 kilogrammes and sodium bicarbonate 1,200.88 grammes) and for which the defendant in that case was sentenced to 24 years after plea for the manufacturing offence as imposed by the Court of Appeal).  The amount of raw materials in this case, although significant, was not as large in comparison with the case of Sum Ka Wa.

33.  This brings the Court to the role played by the Defendants.  It is clear that D1 played a more leading role than D2.  In particular, he rented the Flat, and hired D2 to assist in the manufacturing.  But there is no evidence that either D1 or D2 played “two active roles as both producer of the dangerous drug and as retailer of those drugs to the public” as described in Au Chun Wah §42.  I accept, as submitted by Mr Lau, that D1 himself was working for someone else up the chain.

34.  For D1, the cocaine in Charge 1 also ought to be taken into account when assessing Charge 2.  If one adds the quantity of cocaine from Count 1 (contained in 13 plastic bags) of 266 grammes, the total becomes 3,724.17 grammes and on a purely arithmetical approach this will attract a starting point of 22 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

35.  Taking into account the circumstances of the case and the different roles for D1 and D2 in relation to Charge 2.  I consider: -

(1) 25 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for D1; and

(2) 24 years’ imprisonment for D2

As starting point to be appropriate.

36.  Taking into account their guilty pleas to Charge 1, with the one third discount, the resulting sentences for Charge 2 are:

(1) for D1 – 17 years’ imprisonment; and

(2) for D2 – 16 years’ imprisonment (his previous conviction for trafficking will be considered when addressing Charge 3 below).

37.  Having analysed the manufacturing offence’s sentences in this case as the “anchor”, I will now turn to the trafficking offences Charges 1 and 3.

38.  The 6-step sentencing approach introduced by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[3], as read in conjunction with HKSAR vLee Ming Ho[4], are applied.

39.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for trafficking in dangerous drugs is life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

40.  The guideline band applicable to the total weight of cocaine involved under Charge 3 is 3,458.17 grammes.  This falls under the “20 to 24 years” guideline band as per HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.  On a purely arithmetical approach 3,458.17grammes of cocaine will lead to 22 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

41.  I accept both defence counsel’s submission that as the amount of ketamine involved in this charge (1.55 grammes) is very small in comparison to the more potent and large quantity of cocaine.  I will disregard this small amount of ketamine for the purpose of sentencing.

42.  For Charge 1, the band applicable to the weight of cocaine involved is 266 grammes, falling within “12 to 16 years” as per Huang Ruifang.  On a purely arithmetical approach 266 g of cocaine will lead to 12 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

43.  However, as stated in HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777 para.36, depending on the factual circumstances of the case, different counts of drugs trafficking can sometimes be viewed together as one course of conduct by reason of their temporal or locational proximity.  In which “common sense and sentencing principle dictate that the two counts be treated together for sentencing purposes” and would not warrant any consecutive element.  This matter will be dealt with when the Court addresses totality below.

44.  Charge 3 is a trafficking charge against D1 and D2 jointly.  These were the drugs found in the Flat.  For the cocaine contents of the charge, I find that the “trafficking” is “incidental to the manufacturing process” as explained in Au Chun Wah §43, there the Court of Appeal accepted as a matter of common sense on the particular facts of the case that:

“…the act of manufacturing does not simply end with the physical creation of the dangerous drug in a cooker or, as in either of the cases before us, the adulteration of cocaine into crack cocaine. The whole process of manufacture will inevitably involve the manufacturer putting what he has created or adulterated into bags or packages following production and handing it over to whoever may have given the instructions for its production. Provided his conduct comes within the entire process of manufacturing the product, which is serious enough, there should be no warrant for further penalising him for trafficking in (in the sense of dealing with) the same…”

45.  Similarly for Charge 1, I find that the offence was incidental to the manufacturing count. 

46.  Having already considered the appropriate sentences for both defendants for their roles as manufacturers, I will not take this into account as an aggravating factor when sentencing them for the trafficking counts (Count 1 against D1; and Count 3 against D1 and D2).

47.  There being no other factors making their role and culpability for the trafficking counts more serious, I shall treat them as mere couriers and storekeepers for those counts to avoid double-counting for Counts 1 and 3 respectively.

48.  Therefore, after steps 1 to 3 of Herry Jane Yusuph:

(1) For Charge 1, D1’s notional starting point is 12 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

(2) For Charge 3, both D1’s and D2’s notional starting point is 22 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

49.  For Step 4 of Herry Jane Yusuph aggravating factors.  I do not find any aggravating factors applicable to D1.

50.  For D2, he has a previous conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs for which he was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment.  This was a magistracy case.  This is usually treated as an aggravating factor warranting a further enhancement of sentence.  However, in the circumstances of this case, having regard in particular to the already very lengthy sentence imposed for the manufacturing offence (count 2), I will not further enhance D2’s sentences for this factor.

51.  For step 5 of Herry Jane Yusuph, the only applicable mitigating factor is their guilty plea for which they are entitled to 1/3 discount.  As a result.

(1) For Charge 1, D1’s sentence becomes is 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

(2) For Charge 3, both D1’s and D2’s sentence becomes 14 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

52.  In my assessment, these are fair and balanced sentences for charges 1 and 3.

53.  Lastly, I shall consider totality.  Bearing in mind the guidance giving in HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777.  I order that:

(1) For D1, the sentences for charges 1 and 3 to run wholly concurrently to that of Charge 2: resulting in a final sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment.

(2) For D2, the sentence for charge 3 to run wholly concurrently with Charge 2: resulting in a final sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment.

FINAL SENTENCE

54.  Accordingly, D1 is sentenced to imprisonment for 17 years; and D2 is sentenced to imprisonment for 16 years.