HKSAR v. NG HOI WING

HCCC 39/2025

[2025] HKCFI 3703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 39 OF 2025

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs and one count of manufacturing a dangerous drug. He pleaded guilty on 6 February 2025 and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today he confirms his pleas and the Summary of Facts.

The particulars of Charge 1 was that on 10 April 2023, at Flat B, 1st Floor, Tower 2B, Le Pont, in Tuen Mun, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in 1,074.92 grammes of a solid containing 953.52 grammes of cocaine and 766 grammes of a solid containing 740 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride, a total of 1,693.52 grammes of narcotics. Charge 2 alleges the defendant on the same day and thereabouts at the same premises unlawfully manufactured cocaine.

Customs officers were on anti-narcotics operation at about 7.45 pm on 10 April 2023 when they noticed the defendant walking out of Tower 2B carrying a paper bag. He was intercepted and the bag was searched. Customs officers found a total of 19 transparent resealable plastic bags containing cocaine. He was arrested and under caution, admitted that the drugs were cocaine given to him by another person and he was on his way to deliver the drugs. He would receive $20,000 reward and he lived upstairs in Flat B.

He was escorted back upstairs and the premises searched. In the premises, customs officers found more plastic bags containing cocaine and paraphernalia associated with cooking cocaine to make crack cocaine. The cocaine of Charge 1 includes the cocaine found in the bag he was carrying as well as the cocaine found inside the premises.

Mitigation

The defendant is 40 years old and has previous convictions including one for trafficking in dangerous drugs. That is dated 2010. He is single and was unemployed at the time of his arrest. Ms Wong has said all she can say on his behalf in mitigation and his best mitigation is his plea of guilty. Ms Wong has submitted two mitigation letters today, one from the defendant himself and one from Deacon Peter Wong who has met the defendant during his religious visits to the detention centre. The deacon’s view is that the defendant’s remorse is genuine and his will to reform sincere.

Sentencing

As far as Charge 1 is concerned, I have considered 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.

In the approach to sentencing, six steps have been identified which the court should take, such as assessing the gravity of the offence, an applicable guideline, identifying the defendant’s role, where within the guideline the defendant should lie, any aggravating factors, any mitigating factors and lastly, passing a sentence which is fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

The first step is to assess the gravity of this offence and identify the applicable guideline according to the drugs seized. The tariff for the drug cocaine is set out in the latest authority of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234, where between 1,500 and 5,000 grammes of cocaine is trafficked, the starting point after trial should be between 20 to 24 years. Here, we have 1,693.52 grammes of cocaine, therefore mathematically speaking, that amount of dangerous drugs will attract a starting point of 20 years and 3 months’ 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. He admitted under caution that he cooked cocaine powder to make the more profitable crack cocaine. Once he had manufactured it, he would deliver it as instructed. He was supplied all of the paraphernalia and drugs to manufacture crack cocaine and paid for taking this risk in his own home. He was paid on top of this to deliver drugs. The prosecution accept there is no evidence to suggest this was a large-scale operation therefore I will treat this as an unsophisticated small-scale operation.

Having heard that mitigation I accept it and will take the view he was a courier, a storekeeper and a cook. Bearing in mind the fact that he has been charged with manufacturing as well, Charge 2, I will not take that last job or role into account. Strictly speaking, it is not part of trafficking dangerous drugs anyway but an entirely separate offence. Therefore, I will not enhance the starting point for Charge 1 to take into account this last role as a cook or a manufacturer because the sentence for Charge 2 will reflect this role 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. That will be 20 years and 3 months’ imprisonment as calculated according to the relevant authority.

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 does have one previous similar conviction which I will on this occasion not take into account as an aggravating factor.

As I have said the defendant’s timely plea means he will benefit from a one-third discount. When I apply that discount to the starting point of 20 years and 3 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to 13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

The last step is to stand back and look at the overall sentence in order to ensure that it is fair, just and balanced. In this case, the sentence is substantial but it cannot be judged for that reason alone to be unfair, imbalanced, and unjust in the circumstances of the facts here.

Charge 2

Those involved in manufacturing 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 reasonably be inferred that more dangerous drugs were or were to be manufactured, packed and delivered, more than those that were seized at the time of the defendant’s arrest. It is a well-known principle that sentences for manufacturing offences are often far heavier than those for trafficking offences.

I have referred myself to R v Cheung Wai Kwong and Another [1997] HKLRD 344. In manufacturing cases, the quantity of drugs seized is not the sole consideration in determining a starting point, although it does give an idea of the scale of the operation. Other factors include the capacity of the equipment found, the output of drugs at the manufacturing premises, as well as the role played by the defendant. I have also referred myself to HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2022] 3 HKLRD 408, where the Court of Appeal has laid some guidelines for in particular where the scale of the operation is concerned.

Since we have a quantifiable amount of cocaine in this case, the guidelines for trafficking cocaine and the starting point I considered appropriate for Charge 1 is relevant. I take into account the premises had been set up for the manufacturing process and would have been continuous if not interrupted. This was not a case of renting a hotel room for one night to cook crack cocaine. However, I accept it was not a large-scale operation, nor was the defendant although the cook, was he the mastermind or a sole operator.

Taking into account those factors I find relevant, it is appropriate to take a starting point of 22 years and 3 months for the manufacturing charge, Charge 2. I have increased the starting point of trafficking that amount of cocaine by 2 years to reflect the seriousness of this manufacturing charge.

After applying a discount of one-third to that starting point of 22 years and 3 months for Charge 2, the defendant is sentenced to 14 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

Accordingly, I sentence the defendant as follows.

For Charge 1, I repeat, I sentence the defendant to 13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

For Charge 2, I sentence the defendant to 14 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

Taking into account the totality principle and the facts of this case, I will order that the sentences for Charge 1 and 2 be served concurrently. Therefore, the defendant will serve a total of 14 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.