COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges on 9 June 2025. Charge 1, conspiracy to manufacture a dangerous drug, and Charge 2, conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug. He was committed to the court of first instance for sentence. Today he confirms his pleas and admission of the Summary of Facts.
Both charges were committed between a date unknown in June 2023, and 24 August 2023, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, together with a person known as “Fei Gei”. In Charge 1, he unlawfully manufactured a dangerous drug, namely, cocaine, with that person. And for Charge 2, he conspired with that same person to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, cocaine.
The facts are that on 24 August 2023, the police in the Tuen Mun area conducted an anti-narcotics operation. They laid ambush outside Flat B, 25th floor, the Esplanade, 101 Yip Wong Road.
At about 6.40 am, the defendant attempted to leave these premises and was immediately intercepted by the police. They gained entry to the premises with a search warrant.
These premises were searched and the police found on a table a bag containing 13 transparent resealable plastic bags containing a total of 310 grammes of a solid containing 227 grammes of cocaine.
They also found one transparent resealable plastic bag containing 16 transparent plastic bags containing a total of 305 grammes of a solid containing 230 grammes of cocaine.
They found other paraphernalia associated with weighing and packaging dangerous drugs into bags for the purposes of storage, delivery or sale. That is trafficking. The police also found on a countertop in the open-plan kitchen, pots, a sieve, bowls, a rubber spatula, a fork, all containing traces of a solid containing cocaine. They also found one paper box containing sodium bicarbonate. This is an ingredient necessary for the cooking of cocaine hydrochloride into crack cocaine.
They also found a tenancy agreement in respect of different premises in Tsuen Wan, dated 12 August 2023, under the name of the defendant, $41,000 in cash, and a CCTV camera. These were found in a TV cabinet along with a sealing machine and a digital scale with a large number of empty transparent resealable plastic bags.
The defendant was arrested and cautioned for manufacturing and trafficking dangerous drugs. He made a frank admission under caution, telling the police that he would receive $5,000 for every occasion he cooked crack cocaine. He cooked crack cocaine in two separate premises. The first premises, being the Esplanade where he was arrested, and the second in Tsuen Wan. That is the premises, which the tenancy agreement related to that was found in the TV cabinet.
Since there was a second address according to the tenancy, and it was in the defendant’s name, the police escorted him to that address for a home search. In these premises, the police found and seized in the kitchen a cooker which contained traces of a solid containing cocaine, as well as a metal pot, bowl and a server, containing a total of 0.65 grammes of a solid containing 0.34 grammes of cocaine, and other trays also containing traces of cocaine.
In a video-recorded interview conducted later under caution, the defendant made further admissions. He had met someone who offered him quick money in late December 2022. That man told him to collect a parcel and deliver it to an unknown person in Tuen Mun. He did not know the contents of the parcel. Later, that man and the recipient of that parcel became out of reach. I assume meaning he did not deliver it, nor did he receive a reward for that delivery.
However, later, a man named Fei Gei called him claiming to be the owner of that parcel which contained 5 kilogrammes of uncooked cocaine valued at HK$1,000,000. He accused the defendant of stealing that parcel of drugs. He demanded repayment of HK$1,000,000.
As the defendant was unable to pay, he was forced to cook crack cocaine until he had settled this debt. He was scared and agreed to follow instructions to rent the two material premises to set up a manufacturing process premises.
The agreement was that every time he cooked and packed a batch of crack cocaine, he would be paid $15,000, but only received HK$5,000 after HK$10,000 was deducted as repayment towards his debt. He had seen this man, Fei Gei, twice in April 2023, and thereafter contacted him by WhatsApps or Telegram messaging.
He was given money to rent premises, which he did. He was given a list of equipment to purchase for cooking crack cocaine. In June 2023, he received his first packet of uncooked cocaine, and was taught how to cook crack cocaine via a WhatsApp call. Every pack he was given weighed about 1 kilogramme. He would take photographs when he received each packet. He would be given instructions as to how much of it to cook and how to pack the crack cocaine in bags.
In total, he told the police he cooked crack cocaine about once or twice a week from August 2023, every time he received a packet of uncooked cocaine. He recalled cooking crack cocaine in the Esplanade flat on six different occasions, and in the other premises twice.
Both premises were inspected by a forensic scientist who confirmed that both premises had been used for the purposes of cooking crack cocaine. In the defendant’s red iPhone, the police found photographs of suspected dangerous drugs, conversations relating to manufacturing and trafficking dangerous drugs, as well as contacts of those relevant parties involved in the drug-trafficking activity.
The defendant admits the estimated street value of the dangerous drugs seized in the first premises was about HK$844,056. He admits that he conspired with Fei Gei to manufacture cocaine and to unlawfully traffic in the same drug.
Mitigation
The defendant is now 26 years old and had a clear record. He was educated up to Form 6 level, and at the time of his arrest, he was a scaffolding worker earning $14,000 a month. He was single and residing with his parents and sister.
The reason for committing these offences is because the defendant had developed a gambling habit which led to debt exceeding his monthly income. He borrowed from loan sharks. To repay his debt, he was enticed to work as a drug mule. He was accused of stealing or losing a parcel worth HK$1 million and had to work to repay that debt. He had no choice but to agree to cook crack cocaine, ostensibly to repay his debt, but also to buy himself time to figure out how to get himself out of that mess. According to mitigation put forward, he did cook crack cocaine on eight occasions but botched two attempts.
Ms Tsang has said all she could possibly say in mitigation on behalf of the defendant. His best mitigation is his early plea to both charges.
Sentencing
I turn to the 1st charge, conspiracy to manufacture dangerous drugs. Those who manufacture dangerous drugs should know it is a more serious offence than trafficking per se. After all, it can reasonably be inferred that more dangerous drugs had been, or were to be in the future, manufactured, packed and delivered, than those seized at the time of the defendant’s arrest.
The principle is that sentences for manufacturing offences are heavier than those for trafficking offences. The authorities I have referred to include Wong Chun-ping and Others v R, R v Cheung Wai-kwong and Another, and also HKSAR v Ip Yuet Ho.
Factors to be taken into consideration relevant for the purposes of sentencing includes the quantity of dangerous drugs found, but this is only one factor to be taken into consideration. Others include the scale of the operation, the capacity or nature of the equipment found, whether the manufacturing station had been producing or was likely to produce substantial quantities of dangerous drugs, how long it had been up and running, as well as the role of the defendant in this conspiracy.
For the offence of conspiracy to manufacture a dangerous drug, the Court of Appeal has said in the case of HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing, with reference to the case of HKSAR v Chan Kam Loi, said the following:
“...where a conspiracy to traffic in an unspecified quantity of dangerous drugs is concerned, the sentencing court must do its best to arrive at a starting point based on inferences and assumptions properly derived from the particular facts in the case. Those facts, and the inferences and assumptions from which they derive, will vary from case to case. We would add that, unless the facts which give rise to the inferences and assumptions are clear-cut, they will inevitably lean in favour of the defence.”
In the first premises where the defendant was arrested, a quantifiable amount of cocaine was found. A total of 615 grammes of a solid containing 457 grammes of cocaine. I have taken into account the latest guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234. The starting point for trafficking in cocaine between 200 and 500 grammes is 12 to 16 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically speaking, trafficking in 457 grammes of cocaine attracts a starting point of 15 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.
In mitigation, I have been urged to consider and give considerable weight to the defendant’s role, a minor role in the grand scheme of this manufacturing and trafficking operation. I have been asked to take into account not only the starting point of the amount of cocaine found, but also overall circumstances; after all, each case should still depend on its own facts.
I have taken into account the fact both premises were rented a couple of months before the defendant’s arrest, which means the length of time he was manufacturing or had the opportunity to manufacture dangerous drugs was not very long. Although two premises were set up, they were not sophisticated nor large-scale operations.
However, the manufacturing process would have continued if not interrupted by the police. This was not a case of renting a hotel room for one night to cook a batch of crack cocaine. However, what I accept is that there is no evidence that the defendant had any other role to play in this enterprise other than to cook crack cocaine, weigh it and pack it. There is no evidence he was the mastermind, the financier, or the chemist.
Considering these relevant factors, the amount of cocaine found in the first premises, the starting point for that amount for the purposes of trafficking, I will take it into account, and that is a starting point of 15 years and 3 months, but I increase it to a starting point of 17 years and 3 months’ imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of manufacturing dangerous drugs.
I turn to Charge 2. The defendant is charged with conspiracy to traffic with Fei Gei to unlawfully traffic cocaine.
I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. With the Court of Appeal’s guidance in a most recent authority, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, I will consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 209.
In the approach to sentence, a number of steps have been identified which the court should take, such as assessing the gravity of the offence and 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 the offence and identify the applicable guidelines according to the drug. As I have said above, the latest guidelines for trafficking in this amount of cocaine would mathematically attract a starting point of 15 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.
I have no evidence that other than the defendant cooking crack cocaine, which I will ignore for the purposes of sentence in Charge 2 because that role has been reflected in the sentence for Charge 1, he was anything other than a storekeeper. Therefore, I find the mathematical starting point applicable for Charge 2, I intend to take a starting point of 15 years and 3 month’s imprisonment.
The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors. I find none here.
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount.
After I have applied that discount to the 17 years and 3 months term of imprisonment, the starting point I find appropriate for Charge 1, it is reduced to 11 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
For Charge 2, after I have applied that discount to the 15 years and 3 months term of imprisonment, the starting point I find appropriate for Charge 2, it is reduced to 10 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. I consider the last step for Charge 2, and although this is a substantial term of imprisonment in light of the circumstances of the offence, as well as the defendant, I do not consider it to be unjust, unfair and imbalanced.
I have considered the facts and the totality principle, and I intend to order both terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently.
Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 11 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.