COURT: On 4 September this year, the defendant pleaded guilty to the offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs and manufacturing a dangerous drug.
In respect of the 1st charge, it is alleged that on the 14th day of June 2023, at Flat B on the 5th Floor, Tower 3, Ocean Waves, Victoria Skye, No. 1 Muk Ning Street, Kai Tak, Kowloon, he unlawfully trafficked in 484.4 grammes of cocaine narcotic and 801.21 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride. That is for the 1st charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs.
In respect of the 2nd charge of manufacturing a dangerous drug, it is alleged that between the 8th day of December 2022 and the 14th day of June 2023, at the same flat, Flat B on the 5th Floor of Victoria Skye, he unlawfully manufactured cocaine.
According to the Summary of Facts which he admitted at the time of his guilty plea, on 14 June 2023 police officers mounted an anti-narcotics operation at Tower 3, Ocean Waves, Victoria Skye, No. 1 Muk Ning Street, Kai Tak.
At about 6.55 pm, the police saw the defendant entered Flat B on the 5th Floor. At about 7.59 pm, a police officer knocked on the door, revealed his police identity, and requested the door to be opened. He also warned that the police would forcibly enter Flat B. The police officers heard some sound from the inside of the flat but nobody came to answer the door, so they forcibly opened the door in the belief that someone was trying to destroy the evidence relating to drug activities.
Upon entry, the police found the defendant sitting in the living room alone. There were no other persons in the premises. Eventually, he was subdued by the police, and upon a search on the strength of a search warrant, in the presence of the defendant, the police found all the dangerous drugs particularised in the 1st charge.
Also they found a large quantity of chemicals and paraphernalia including electrical extension socket, electronic scales, scissors, pliers, sealing machine, resealable plastic bags, plastic gloves and two plastic bags of phenacetin which is a listed Part I poison, some quantity of sodium bicarbonate, also a metallic pot containing chopsticks and forceps and metallic containers containing some cocaine, as well as a metallic spoon containing traces of cocaine. There was also paper towel as well.
The tenancy agreement of the flat found in the premises showed that the defendant was the tenant of the flat. Upon his arrest by the police for the offences of trafficking in a dangerous drug and manufacturing a dangerous drug, the defendant stated under caution that he received 8,000 from another person for cooking “Coke” and asked the police to give him a chance. He said “Coke” means the drug cocaine. He also said that he used a passcode to gain access to the premises.
The government forensic scientist, Dr Chow Pui-keong, attended the flat for an inspection. In his expert opinion, chemicals and the paraphernalia seized from the flat were items commonly associated with the process of converting cocaine hydrochloride to cocaine base, and the process had taken place in the flat. Dr Chow opined that cocaine hydrochloride and sodium bicarbonate could be used as the starting materials for the preparation of cocaine base.
The other paraphernalia found in the premises were found to contain cocaine, indicating that they could have been used in handling cocaine. Also the phenacetin, the Part I poison found in the premises, could be used as the adulterant in the conversion process.
Cash of HK$250, RMB100 and two mobile phones were also seized from the person of the defendant.
Police enquiries revealed that the defendant was the tenant of the flat with the tenancy agreement commencing on 15 December 2022 for a period of two years for a monthly rental of HK$13,800. The CCTV cameras of the building captured that the defendant attended Tower 3 on each day from 8 to 11 and 13 to 14 June 2023. That is a total of six days in June 2023.
The DNA of the defendant was also found on three glass bottles in the living room and the open kitchen of the premises.
Upon examination of his two mobile phones, the police found some WhatsApp messages between him and a person named “Dai Sum” containing instructions for the defendant to manufacture and deliver drugs.
In the subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant stated under caution that he was instructed by a male called Dai Sum to process and manufacture cocaine in return for monetary reward. Because he was in financial difficulty due to gambling, so he agreed.
Upon the request of Dai Sum, he rented the flat in December 2022 for a period of two years to use it as a drug manufacturing workshop. The monthly rental was paid by Dai Sum. The flat was solely used by the defendant himself.
In late December 2022, he and Dai Sum attended the flat together on two occasions. Dai Sum had brought the paraphernalia for processing cocaine to the flat and taught him how to manufacture cocaine there, and that later on, whenever Dai Sum gave him orders and instructions, then he would attend the flat to manufacture cocaine.
He also said that some drug couriers would phone him for delivering of cocaine and he would meet the drug couriers on the streets in the vicinity to collect the cocaine. Dai Sum would also give him instructions on the proportion of cocaine, soda powder and unknown powder to be mixed together with water. He would heat up the mixture of those ingredients in a pot to manufacture the cocaine, and he would receive about 1,000 grammes to 2,000 grammes of cocaine from the drug couriers once every week to be processed in the flat.
He had been manufacturing cocaine in the flat since early January 2023, except the period between 25 March to May 2023. He said he last manufactured cocaine in the flat on 10 June 2023, that is four days before his arrest.
He also said that on 14 June, Dai Sum instructed him to deliver 156 grammes of processed cocaine to Nam Shan Estate. He was about to deliver the cocaine to the drug courier at about 8.30 pm, and then he was arrested by the police.
He said all the processed cocaine found in the premises were manufactured and packaged by him in June 2023 for subsequent delivery to customers.
He also said that the scissors and the pliers found in the flat were used to cut the processed cocaine into smaller pieces. The pot was used to contain the mixture of cocaine, the soda powder and the unknown powder and heated it up by the induction cooker to manufacture cocaine. The metallic pot, the metallic containers, chopsticks, metallic spoon and the forceps were used to handle the cocaine when he was manufacturing cocaine.
He would also use the electronic scales to weigh the cocaine, the resealable plastic bags to contain the processed cocaine, the sealing machine to seal the bags, and also the soda powder to be used during the manufacturing process.
He said Dai Sum would pay him salary in cash. He had already received salary in the total sum of about HK$100,000-odd to HK$200,000 for the manufacturing in the flat during January to March 2023, and all the cash seized from him were the salary paid to him by Dai Sum.
In June 2023, the estimated street value of all the dangerous drugs seized in the present case was between HK$1,307,963 and HK$1,564,273.
The defendant now admits and accepts that he was knowingly in possession of all the cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride seized in this case for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, and he also admits and accepts that he unlawfully manufactured cocaine in the flat between 8 December 2022 and 14 June 2023.
The defendant is now 29 years of age. He was 27 years old at the time of the offences. He is a person of clear record. He has received education up to Form 6 level and was unemployed at the time of his arrest. He is single and at the time of his arrest, he resided with his father and elder brother in a public housing estate.
In mitigation, counsel Mr Gordon Wong informed me that the defendant, after he graduated, he left school at the age of 19 years. He started working as a broadband internet installation technician, earning about $20,000 per month. He quitted the job in the end of 2022. His parents were divorced and he lived with his elder brother and father.
Since around 2020, he picked up the habit of football gambling and he was also hanging out with undesirable companions. He was losing money and quickly ran into financial difficulties. Because of his financial situation and the loans incurred, he was recruited by others to commit the present offences.
Counsel submitted that the defendant is now deeply regretful about the offences, and since his remand he has studied a university course and some religious classes, hoping to better equip himself. He also demonstrated his remorse by giving his assistance to the police.
The defendant himself had written a letter to this court to plead for mitigation. In that letter, he said that he became addicted to gambling in 2020 and owed hundreds of thousands in debt. He could no longer meet the minimum repayment amount, and so he started to be engaged in drug trafficking, hoping to earn quick money to repay the debts. He said his reasons for trafficking were, first, to earn money to repay debts, and secondly, because he was naive enough to think that drugs were not as evil as murder, arson or robbery. He said he is now regretful, and he would cooperate with the police to assist them in the fighting of crime. He asked this court to give him a lenient sentence.
The defendant’s mother, elder brother and also a friend from high school had also written to this court to express their care about the defendant and asked for a lenient sentence on his behalf.
In respect of Charge 1. counsel rightly conceded that his role was higher than that of a mere courier, because he was also responsible for the renting of a residential flat for the manufacturing of the drug. He took part in converting cocaine hydrochloride into crack cocaine for the period between January and June 2023, except between the end of March to May. He was responsible for the purchasing of some of the drug manufacturing paraphernalia. He was also engaged in the packaging process of the cocaine and also delivered the processed cocaine to couriers or customers. Counsel also agreed that the defendant had received significant financial gain for the offences.
But, on the other hand, counsel submitted that he was not quite a manager or organiser in the trafficking hierarchy because he was acting under the instructions of another person, and the rental and his salary were all paid by another person. He was taught how to manufacture crack cocaine by the other person as well.
In respect of the charge of manufacturing a dangerous drug, counsel agreed that the starting point for manufacturing should be higher than the one for trafficking of the narcotics found.
Counsel submitted that he had been manufacturing in the unit for a few months, in fact for three months prior to his arrest, and that he had received around 1,000 to 2,000 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride every week during that period. Counsel urged this court to consider the purity of the cocaine hydrochloride by taking into account the purity of the cocaine hydrochloride in the 1st charge, that is 962.23 grammes of a solid containing 801.21 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride. So the percentage of purity should be 83.27 per cent.
Counsel also urged this court to take into account the information that had laid before me by the prosecution, and to give him more than one-third discount for those matters. Counsel urged this court to consider an overall discount of about 40 per cent in respect of his plea of guilty and the information laid before this court.
Counsel urged this court to impose concurrent sentences for the two charges because the offence period in the manufacturing charge also includes the offence date of the trafficking charge, and the two counts are in fact intricately linked, closely linked. This is particularly so if the starting point for the trafficking charge has been enhanced because of the manufacturing role of the defendant.
In sentencing the defendant for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, I would bear in mind the approach set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as modified by the case of HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
In respect of the 1st charge, the total quantity of cocaine narcotic involved is 1,285.61 grammes of cocaine narcotic. According to the revised guideline in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the starting point for trafficking in between 50 and 1,500 grammes of cocaine narcotic is 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment after trial. So the mathematical starting point for trafficking in 1,285.61 grammes of cocaine would be 19 years and 1 month imprisonment. The mathematical starting point is appropriate for persons at the lower bottom of the trafficking hierarchy such as storekeepers or couriers.
In the present case, in assessing the role and culpability of the defendant, I accept counsel’s concession that he was more than a mere courier or a mere storekeeper. There is clear evidence to show that he was the person responsible to rent the premises in December 2022 for the only purpose of manufacturing of crack cocaine.
He also took part in the manufacturing of cocaine by converting the cocaine hydrochloride into crack cocaine since after he had rented the flat, and that he was responsible for buying some of the paraphernalia found in the flat. He was also responsible for packaging the processed cocaine and deliver the processed cocaine to customers and couriers on the instruction of his boss.
So taking into account his role and culpability, in particular the fact that he was also engaged in the manufacturing of the cocaine, the delivery as well as storekeeping, I consider that the appropriate notional sentence after trial should be 21 years’ imprisonment for the 1st charge.
In respect of the mitigating factors, he pleaded guilty at an early stage, as such he is entitled to a full one-third discount. I also take into account information that had laid before me by both parties. In the circumstances, taking into account all the matters, including his plea of guilty at an early stage, I consider that it would be appropriate to give him a total discount of 42 per cent.
A 42 per cent discount from the notional sentence of 21 years after trial would be 12 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. In respect of the 1st charge, I will sentence him to 12 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
Coming to the 2nd charge of manufacturing a dangerous drug. In the case of HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2022] 3 HKLRD 408, the Court of Appeal had pointed out that sentences for manufacturing offences are far heavier than those of trafficking offences involving the same quantity. The starting point for manufacturing offences must be based on the overall circumstances of the individual case including the quantity seized at the manufacturing workshop, the size and the productivity of the workshop because that would reflect 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, extent of the defendant’s participation and his role, they are all important factors for sentencing.
The court pointed out that the appropriate starting point for a one-off rather than continuous manufacturing act should be slightly higher than that for trafficking in the same quantity of drugs. However, that should not be less than 10 years’ imprisonment unless the manufacturing act was just nominal.
If the manufacturing act was continuous and the workshop was of considerable scale and productivity involving a large amount of chemicals and a not insignificant quantity of high-standard manufacturing paraphernalia, the appropriate sentence should not be lower than 20 years’ imprisonment even if the quantity of drugs seized on the spot is not substantial.
For a large-scale, productive and long-running manufacturing workshop where the defendant played an active and important role, and an exceptionally high amount of drugs was seized, the appropriate starting point should even exceed 30 years’ imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the offence.
Coming back to the present case. The 2nd charge covered the period between the 8th day of December 2022 and the 14th day of June 2023. That is a period of six months and six days.
In respect of the period that the flat was engaged or the defendant was engaged in actual manufacturing, I would rely on his admission made in the video-recorded interview as one can see from the Summary of Facts. In the video-recorded interview, he admitted that he was engaged in manufacturing since early January 2023 to 10 June 2023, except in the period between 25 March and May 2023.
So taking into account the period that he admitted to be engaged in manufacturing, I would say that would be around three months out of the charged period of six months. In those three months there would be around 12 weeks involved.
According to his own admission, he would receive around 1,000 to 2,000 grammes of cocaine from the couriers once every week to be processed in the flat. So, taking the average, it would be around 1,500 grammes of cocaine to be processed every week. Multiplying 1,500 grammes by 12 weeks would achieve a result of 18,000 grammes of cocaine. Clearly that would be in the form of cocaine hydrochloride, that is before the cocaine was processed or converted into crack cocaine.
Adopting the purity of cocaine hydrochloride seized in the premises on 14 June, that would be about 83.27 per cent purity. So 18,000 grammes times 83.27 per cent purity would result in the cocaine narcotic of 14,940 grammes of cocaine. I repeat, 14,940 grammes of cocaine.
By using the guidelines, the mathematical starting point for trafficking in this quantity of cocaine narcotic would result in 26 years and 11 months’ imprisonment. But clearly for the offence of manufacturing a much higher starting point should be adopted, taking into account the more serious nature of the offence and all the circumstances of the case.
In this particular case, I take into account the actual period that the defendant engaged in manufacturing, the fact that he was actually the person who rented the premises for the only purpose of manufacturing with the intention of manufacturing drugs there for two years, the quantity of drugs involved, the scale of the workshop, the quantity of paraphernalia found in the premises, the particular role of the defendant and the productivity of the workshop. I consider that for the 2nd charge the appropriate starting point should be one of 30 years’ imprisonment. That is sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the offence.
Because the defendant pleaded guilty at an early stage, as a result of the information laid before me by parties, I consider that the appropriate discount to be given to him should be 42 per cent. So after the 42 per cent discount for the 2nd charge, he is sentenced to 17 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.
I agree with defence counsel’s submission that the two charges are, obviously, closely linked with one another and that in fact Charge 1 also derived from the manufacturing in Charge 2. The period of the charge also overlaps. It would be fair in all the circumstances to order that the sentence in Charge 1 to run concurrently with the sentence in Charge 2.
In respect of the 1st charge, the defendant is sentenced to 12 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. In respect of the 2nd charge, he is sentenced to 17 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. Both sentences are to run wholly concurrent to each other.
So the ultimate sentence for both charges would be 17 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.