HKSAR v. CHUNG CHING AND ANOTHER

HCCC 419/2024

[2026] HKCFI 457

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 419 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The 1st and 2nd defendants each pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs and one charge of manufacturing a dangerous drug, and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 5 December 2024. The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before this court, both the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant have confirmed their plea and their agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel.

2.  The particulars of the 1st charge state that on or about the 6th day of April 2022, at Room 1933, Hyatt Regency Hotel, No. 18 Chak Cheung Street, Shatin, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the 1st and 2nd defendants unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 1,076.23 grammes of a solid containing 820.83 grammes of cocaine and 13.1 grammes of a solid containing 11.9 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride.

3.  The particulars of the 2nd charge state that on or about the 6th day of April 2022, at Room 1933, Hyatt Regency Hotel, No. 18 Chak Cheung Street, Shatin, New Territories, in Hong Kong, the 1st and 2nd defendants unlawfully manufactured a dangerous drug, namely cocaine.

4.  As the two charges refer to the same time period, the same personnel involved and the same dangerous drugs involved, it is clear that the charges only differ in that Charge 2 targets the acts done in the manufacturing process, whereas Charge 1 targets the other acts done in the dealing in and dealing with the dangerous drugs, such as the weighing, packing and delivery of the drugs.

5.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendants provide, inter alia, as follows.  In the afternoon on 5 April 2022, Customs officers were conducting an anti-dangerous drug patrol in the vicinity of University MTR Station.  At around 3.45 pm on the same day, the 1st and 2nd defendants were seen walking out from University MTR Station and along Chak Cheung Street towards Hyatt Regency Hotel, 18 Chak Cheung Street, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong (“the Hotel”).  The 2nd defendant was holding a loaded green shopping bag, while the 1st defendant was empty-handed.  Several minutes later, the 1st and 2nd defendants took the lift from the hotel’s carpark lift lobby and went up to the 19th Floor of the Hotel.  Customs officers began to monitor the Hotel’s CCTV and saw the two defendants entering Room 1933 of the Hotel (“the Room”).

6.  At around 10.50 pm on the same day, the 1st defendant left the Room empty-handed and took the lift to the Ground Floor.  She walked out from the Hotel and picked up a plastic bag from a Chinese male.  She returned to the Room with the plastic bag at around 10.56 pm on that day.

7.  At around 2.08 am on 6 April 2022, the 2nd defendant left the Room empty-handed but carrying a sling bag and took the lift to the Ground Floor. She walked out from the Hotel, boarded a taxi and left.  At about 2.35 pm on the same day, the 2nd defendant went to the reception counter of the Hotel empty-handed.  She then took the lift and entered the Room.

8.  At around 4.26 pm on 6 April 2022, the 2nd defendant left the Room empty-handed and took the lift to the platform of the Hotel.  Customs officers intercepted the 2nd defendant as she walked out from the Hotel’s platform entrance.  Upon enquiry and when asked how she went into the Room, the 2nd defendant said the hotel staff used the card to let her go upstairs. Upon search of the 2nd defendant, nothing suspicious was found. 

9.  At around 4.30 pm on 6 April 2022, Customs officers entered the Room with the key card provided by the Hotel and saw the 1st defendant standing in the Room’s living room.  The room was less than 200 square feet in size.  There were a living room, an open kitchen, a living room toilet, a bedroom and a bedroom toilet.

10.  Upon search of the Room’s open kitchen bench, the following items were found:

(1) a glass plate inside a microwave oven, which contained traces of cocaine;

(2) a bowl containing two spoons and 0.09 grammes of a solid containing cocaine;

(3) a metal pot containing 250 millilitres of water;

(4) an induction stove;

(5) two electronic scales;

(6) a plastic tray containing 2.07 grammes of a solid containing 0.62 grammes of cocaine;

(7) an opened paper box containing 450 grammes of a solid containing sodium bicarbonate;

(8) two filters containing a total of 0.09 grammes of a solid in which no dangerous drug was detected;

(9) three plastic wrappings containing a total of 0.09 grammes of a solid containing cocaine;

(10) a pair of gloves;

(11) kitchen papers.

11.  Upon search of the bench in the living room toilet, the following items were found:

(1) a plastic box containing a metal spoon, a debit card, 2.36 grammes of a solid containing 0.25 grammes of cocaine, and a resealable plastic bag containing 28.5 grammes of a powder containing paracetamol;

(2) a whisk, a cutter and a pair of pliers, each containing traces of a solid containing cocaine;

(3) two electronic scales;

(4) a glass bowl containing a spatula and 0.02 grammes of a solid containing cocaine;

(5) a box containing three marker pens, a bunch of stickers, a bunch of empty resealable plastic bags and three tools;

(6) a bunch of gloves;

(7) a stack of papers.

12.  Upon search of the bench in the bedroom toilet, the following items were found:

(1) a document bag containing 22 resealable plastic bags, which contained a total of 465.5 grammes of a solid containing 348.4 grammes of cocaine;

(2) a paper bag containing 23 resealable plastic bags, which contained a total of 477.3 grammes of a solid containing 395.7 grammes of cocaine;

(3) a box containing six resealable plastic bags, which contained a total of 106 grammes of a solid containing a total of 69.8 grammes of cocaine;

(4) an electronic scale, a spatula and metal sieve, each containing traces of a solid containing cocaine;

(5) a plastic disc containing 13.1 grammes of a solid containing 11.9 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride (a salt of cocaine);

(6) a glass plate and a metal spoon containing 22.8 grammes of a solid containing 6.06 grammes of cocaine;

(7) a stack of empty resealable plastic bags;

(8) a plastic tray;

(9) a HK$100 note.

13.  The above resealable bags containing cocaine and paracetamol were all marked with various numbers and/or words with a marker pen. 

14.  In the living room, there were three key cars, a trolley and a green shopping bag containing a roll of plastic table cover and wooden bread roller.

15.  The total quantity of dangerous drugs seized from the Room was 1,076.23 grammes of a solid containing 820.83 grammes of cocaine and 13.1 grammes of a solid containing 11.9 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride.

16.  The total estimated street value of the seized cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride was HK$990,200 (powder cocaine) or HK$1,803,930 (crack cocaine).

17.  According to Government Chemist, cocaine commonly exists in the cocaine base form or in the cocaine hydrochloride form (a salt of cocaine).  Cocaine hydrochloride can be converted to cocaine base to make it suitable for smoking.  This process requires mixing the cocaine hydrochloride and baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) in a container and adding water to dissolve the mixture.  Adulterant, such as paracetamol, can be added to the mixture.  The dissolved mixture is then heated to speed up the chemical reaction.  After the solution is cooled, the cocaine base is produced and solidified.  The cocaine base so produced is in the form of lumps, commonly known as “crack”.  Government Chemist opined that the substance, paraphernalia and apparatus found in the Room were commonly associated with the manufacturing process of cocaine base from cocaine hydrochloride and the use of paracetamol as adulterant.

18.  Arrested and cautioned, both the 1st and 2nd defendants denied knowledge about the nature and ownership of the dangerous drugs.  The 2nd defendant stated under caution that the 1st defendant was her former partner’s little god-sister (前度嘅契妹), and the 2nd defendant called the 1st defendant “Little Sister” (阿妹).

19.  CCTV captured the 1st and 2nd defendants checking into the Hotel at about 1.44 pm on 5 April 2022.  The 2nd defendant was pulling a trolley.  The 1st and 2nd defendants then went upstairs to go into the Room.  At about 2.54 pm on 5 April 2022, the 1st and 2nd defendants left the Room.  The 1st defendant was carrying a handbag while the 2nd defendant was not carrying anything.  They went downstairs and left the Hotel.  At about 3.54 pm on 5 April 2022, the 1st and 2nd defendants returned to the Room.  The 1st defendant was carrying a small handbag, while the 2nd defendant was carrying a dark shopping bag.

20.  Records of the Hotel show that the 1st and 2nd defendants booked the Room from 5 to 6 April 2022.  The 1st and 2nd defendants checked into the Hotel on 5 April 2022 and were given two key cards to the Room.

21.  The Hotel records show that the customer paid $500 deposit on 5 April 2022 for booking the Room and another $700 on 6 April 2022 for late checkout.

22.  The 1st and 2nd defendants now admit and accept that:

(1) On or about the 6th day of April 2022, in Room 1933, Hyatt Regency Hotel, 18 Chak Cheung Street, Shatin, New Territories, in Hong Kong, they unlawfully trafficked in the dangerous drugs seized from the Room, namely 1,076.23 grammes of a solid containing 820.83 grammes of cocaine and 13.1 grammes of a solid containing 11.9 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride.

(2) On or about the 6th day of April 2022, in the Room, they manufactured a dangerous drug, namely cocaine.

23.  Regarding the personal background of the defendants, the 1st defendant is 28 years of age.  She has a total of three previous criminal convictions, all of which are related to gambling.  Her last conviction was recorded in 2021, for which she was fined $1,000. 

24.  The 1st defendant was born in Hong Kong.  She has been educated up to Secondary Form 6 level.  Her parents were divorced when she was 10.  She maintained a close contact with her father, while her relationship with her mother was distant at best.  Her father works as a lorry driver and suffered a stroke in 2023.  The 1st defendant has three elder brothers, two of whom reside and study abroad. 

25.  At the time of the offence, the 1st defendant was unemployed.  Previously, she had worked as a part-time model, earning about $600 to $800 an hour.  She was married when she was 20, but the marriage did not work out.  She suffered a miscarriage.  The couple divorced two years later.  She became suicidal and made an attempt to kill herself.  After being rescued by the Fire Services Department, she sought help from the Kwai Chung Hospital.  She was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder.  However, she somehow did not follow up with the outpatient treatment. 

26.  At around this time, she got into the company of bad peers and became a drug addict.  Fortunately, she got rid of the drug habit by joining voluntary treatments.  However, she fell into the trap of trying to earn some quick money and committed the present offence.

27.  The 2nd defendant is 35 years of age.  The 2nd defendant was born in Hong Kong in 1990.  She was 32 years old at the time of her arrest.  She was educated up to Secondary Form 5 level.  After leaving school, she had been working as a tattoo artist from time to time.  Prior to her arrest, she earned about HK$15,000 from that work.

28.  Soon after her birth, the 2nd defendant’s parents left her to the care of her relatives, effectively abandoned her.  She was, in her own words, passed around like a ball amongst her relatives, with no stable home.  From the year of Primary 4 to Secondary 2, she was under the care of a children’s unit/home. 

29.  The 2nd defendant, however, has been rather close to her maternal grandparents.  Her grandfather is now in his 70s.  Her grandmother, unfortunately, passed away in late 2022.

30.  The 2nd defendant has previous convictions.  One was drug-related (namely, possession of dangerous drug) and the last one was for possession of prohibited weapons.  She, however, has no previous convictions for trafficking or manufacturing of dangerous drugs.

31.  The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.  The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band (or bracket) applicable to the quantity of drug concerned.  The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence before the court.  The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of the guideline the defendant comes.  It may be necessary to go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the role of the defendant.  The fourth step is to consider the aggravating factors which bear on the “notional sentence after trial”.  The fifth step is to have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional”.  The sixth and final step is for the judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced sentence”. 

32.  I shall adopt a similar six-step approach in arriving at the appropriate sentences in the present case.  I shall deal first with the starting point under step 1 for Charge 1 (trafficking in dangerous drugs). 

33.  Regarding step 1, that involves the identification of the appropriate initial sentencing range applicable to the quantity of drugs involved, before considering the role and culpability of the defendants under step 2. 

34.  The total quantifiable dangerous drugs seized at the room are 820.83 grammes of cocaine and 11.9 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride, a total of 832.73 grammes.  According to the sentencing guideline for trafficking in cocaine set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the notional starting point under step 1 for Charge 1 for trafficking in 832.73 grammes of cocaine should be around 17 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

35.  As to the starting point under step 1 for Charge 2 (manufacturing of a dangerous drug), I take into account the following:

(1) It has long been held in this jurisdiction that the offence of manufacturing is to be regarded even more seriously than the offence of trafficking.

(2) If the drug manufacturing act is a continuous act spanning a period of time, and the drug manufacturing workshop is of a considerable scale and productivity involving a large amount of chemicals used for drug manufacturing as well as a not insignificant quantity of high standard drug manufacturing paraphernalia, the appropriate sentence should not be lower than 20 years’ imprisonment, even if the quantity of drugs seized on the spot was not substantial: see HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2022] 3 HKLRD 408, paragraph 34. In our case, the quantity of drugs seized was some 832.73 grammes of cocaine. However, from the Summary of Facts, it seems that the Room had only been rented for one day.

(3) When it comes to a large scale productive and long-running drug manufacturing workshop, where the defendant plays an active and important role, and where an exceptionally large amount of drug is seized, the appropriate starting point should even exceed 30 years’ imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the offence: see HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai,ibid, paragraph 36.

36.  In the   present   case,  taking  into  account  all  the   relevant circumstances, I hold that the notional starting point under step 1 for Charge 2 (manufacturing of a dangerous drug) should be 19 years’ imprisonment.

37.  Regarding step 2, for Charge 1 (trafficking in dangerous drugs), concerning the role and culpability of the defendants, I find that based on the Summary of Facts, the defendants were obviously more than just a courier or storekeeper.  They were responsible for booking the room and they have both admitted to have been involved in the manufacturing process.

38.  Regarding step 3, based on my findings made at step 2, I would adopt the following “notional sentence after trial” for the offences in question:

(1) regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 1 (trafficking): 17 years and 9 months’ imprisonment;

(2) regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 2 (manufacturing): 19 years’ imprisonment;

(3) regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 1 (trafficking): 17 years and 9 months’ imprisonment;

(4) regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 2 (manufacturing): 19 years’ imprisonment.

39.  Regarding step 4, I am of the view that there is no aggravating factor, which would go to enhance the notional sentence after trial identified under step 3.

40.  Regarding step 5, I consider that the main factor which may reduce the defendants’ sentences are the timely guilty pleas, for which I will give them a one-third discount.  However, in the case of the 2nd defendant and as a matter of discretion, I would afford her a discount of 2 months for her participation in Father Wotherspoon’s programme.  Accordingly, the defendants’ sentences are reduced to the following:

(1) regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 1 (trafficking): 11 years and 10 months’ imprisonment;

(2) regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 2 (manufacturing): 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment;

(3) regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 1 (trafficking): 11 years and 8 months’ imprisonment;

(4) regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 2 (manufacturing): 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

41.  Finally, I consider the sentences indicated above to be fair, just and balanced sentences, taking into account the circumstances of this case and the circumstances of the defendants. 

42.  Accordingly, the 1st defendant is sentenced to 11 years and 10 months’ imprisonment on Charge 1, 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment on Charge 2, and I order that the sentences are to run concurrently.

43.  In the case of the 2nd defendant, I sentence her to 11 years and 8 months’ imprisonment on Charge 1 and 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment on Charge 2.  Again, I order the sentences to run concurrently.

44.  So that the total sentence to be served by the 1st defendant is 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, and the total sentence to be served by the 2nd defendant is 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.