COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts, one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, and one count of manufacturing a dangerous drug. He pleaded guilty on 13 January 2025 and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
The particulars of Charge 1 is that the defendant, on 25 May 2023, in Flat K, 7th Floor, Tower 2, Emerald Bay, Tuen Mun, unlawfully trafficked in 1,224.2 grammes of a solid containing 1,034.02 grammes of cocaine. Charge 2 alleges the defendant manufactured cocaine in those premises on or about the same day.
The police had information and obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s rented premises in Emerald Bay. They conducted an anti-narcotics operation targeting the premises at 6.30 pm on 25 May 2023. Half an hour later, the defendant was seen leaving the premises and immediately intercepted. Inside the premises, the police found the cocaine of Charge 1 and paraphernalia associated and confirmed to be for the purposes of cooking powder cocaine into crack cocaine. That is the basis of Charge 2.
The defendant was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs and admitted that he had agreed to cook crack cocaine and deliver it. He had rented the premises a month earlier. He admits the estimated market value of the cocaine seized was $1,987,006.
Mitigation
The defendant is 33 years old this year, single, and previously had one conviction for possessing dangerous drugs in September 2021 for which he was fined. At the time of his arrest, he was working as a plumber and living at home with his family.
I have read many letters of mitigation from the defendant, family members, and friends. He has so much support here today. I am sure the defendant is very grateful for that support.
Ms Lee has said all she can say on his behalf in mitigation. The defendant’s best mitigation is his pleas of guilty at the earliest opportunity. Ms Lee further explained that Covid affected his business and income. He had borrowed money. He became mixed up with people who offered him drugs. He got himself into more debt and was ultimately declared bankrupt. Those same people then convinced him to commit these offences to earn easy money.
The cooking facility was set up in the premises in his name by others, and he was offered $3,000 every time he cooked a batch of crack cocaine. He was taught how to cook the crack cocaine. He was told if he ever had to deliver what he had cooked, he would be paid extra. Ms Lee has very openly said he had only cooked crack cocaine twice before his arrest.
Sentencing
Let me first deal with the 2nd charge, the manufacturing charge. Those who manufacture dangerous drugs play a more significant role than a courier or a storekeeper. It is a more serious offence than trafficking per se. After all, it can be reasonably inferred that more dangerous drugs had been manufactured prior to arrest or would have been, if not arrested, continued to be manufactured, cooked, packed, and distributed. That means more than what was seized at the time of the house search.
It is a well-known principle that sentences for manufacturing offences are far heavier than those of trafficking dangerous drugs. In cases of manufacturing, the quantity of drugs seized is important but not the sole consideration in determining a starting point. It does often give an idea of the scale of the operation to assist in sentencing. Other factors include the capacity of the equipment seized, the output of drugs at the manufacturing premises, the size of the premises, how long the premises have been occupied by this operation, as well as the role played by the defendant.
I have been urged to consider the operation here was not sophisticated nor of a particularly large scale. In addition, the premises were in the defendant’s name, but he had only rented the premises one month prior to his arrest.
Since we do have a quantifiable amount of cocaine in this case, for the purposes of Charge 1, the guidelines for trafficking cocaine is relevant. The latest Court of Appeal authority relating to guidelines for trafficking cocaine is HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234. The starting point for trafficking in cocaine between 500 and 1,500 grammes is 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically speaking, trafficking in 1,034.02 grammes of cocaine attracts a starting point of 18 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.
As far as the 1st charge is concerned, having concerned the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, that was very recently discussed and reiterated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150.
The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guidelines according to the drugs seized.
For Charge 1, I have already identified the guidelines and mathematical starting point above. Let me repeat, mathematically speaking, trafficking in this amount of cocaine for Charge 1 attracts a starting point of 18 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.
The second step of the six steps is to assess the defendant’s role and culpability based upon the evidence. When arrested, the defendant took full responsibility when he admitted under caution he agreed to cook crack cocaine in the premises and then distribute the finished product. He appears to admit this operation was set up and operated by himself.
In mitigation, there is a different explanation and that is he was not in a financial position to rent a flat, set up the operation, and buy or have the ability to take on a consignment of nearly $2 million worth of drugs himself. He agreed to do it for others, taking the risk for a financial reward. Ms Lee has produced photographs of the premises, and it would appear to be a small-scale operation.
Having heard that mitigation, I accept it, and I will take the view that the defendant was a foot solider, a courier, a storekeeper, and a cook. Now, bearing in mind the fact he has been charged with manufacturing as well, Charge 2, I do not take that last role or job into account. After all, strictly speaking, it is not part of the trafficking in dangerous drugs charge but an entirely separate offence. I do not enhance the starting point for Charge 1 by taking into account his role as a cook or manufacturer because the sentence for Charge 2 will reflect it instead.
This means the starting point for Charge 1 is to be determined by the relevant tariffs and the quantity of dangerous drugs involved for the third step. I will take a starting point of 18 years’ imprisonment.
The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors. There are no mitigating factors other than his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity. He has one previous drugs-related conviction which I will on this occasion not take into account as an aggravating factor.
Can I ask the defendant to please stand up? As I have said, the defendant’s timely plea means he will benefit from a full one-third discount. For Charge 1, when I apply that discount to the starting point of 18 years’ imprisonment, the starting point is reduced to one of 12 years’ imprisonment.
For Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.
For Charge 2, I have taken into account factors I find relevant and I have already mentioned. I will take into account the mathematical starting point for the drugs found and increase that starting point of 18 years’ imprisonment by 2 years to reflect the seriousness of this manufacturing charge.
After applying a discount of one-third to that starting point of 20 years’ imprisonment for Charge 2, the defendant is sentenced to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
The last step for sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs is to stand back and look at the overall sentence in order to ensure that it is fair, just, and balanced in all of the circumstances of not only the offence but also the defendant.
In this case, the sentence is significant, but it cannot be judged for that reason alone to be unfair, imbalanced, or unjust in the circumstances of the facts here.
Accordingly, I sentence the defendant as follows;
I repeat, for Charge 1, I sentence the defendant to 12 years’ imprisonment.
For Charge 2, I sentence the defendant to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
After considering the totality principle and the facts of the case together, I will order that the sentences for Charges 1 and 2 be served concurrently. The defendant will serve a total of 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.