COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts on 20 October 2025 and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today, he confirms his pleas and admission of the Summary of Facts.
He pleaded guilty to the Count 1 of manufacturing in a dangerous drug on or about 16 January 2024 at Flat C, 21st Floor, Block 1, Concord Building, No. 80 Soy Street, Kowloon, he unlawfully manufactured a dangerous drug, namely cocaine.
He also pleaded guilty to the Count 2, trafficking in dangerous drugs on 16 January, in the same premises, he unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 6.97 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 6.89 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 98.7 grammes of a solid containing 89.8 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride, and 91.55 grammes of a solid containing 82.4 grammes of cocaine.
The Facts
On 16 January 2024, police officers obviously acting on information, gained access to Flat C and found the defendant alone inside the premises. It was searched and a black suitcase was found inside a bedroom containing all the drugs of Count 2, cocaine and ‘Ice’.
In the kitchen, the police found paraphernalia associated with manufacturing crack cocaine, including a stove, metal pot, spoon, baking soda, glass beakers, with many items containing traces of cocaine or minute quantities of cocaine. An expert examined the premises and opined that the equipment found were capable of being utilised to manufacture crack cocaine.
Under caution, the defendant admitted manufacturing crack cocaine but for his own consumption. As for the drugs in the suitcase, he was going to deliver and sell them to others. The ‘Ice’ had been delivered to him to store by a recruiter, who would give him instructions to deliver as directed, for which he would receive $10,000. He admitted cooking crack cocaine in his kitchen.
He agreed that the total estimated street value of all the drugs seized was $3,736,458.
Mitigation
The defendant is now 62 years old and was educated up to Form 3 level. He is divorced and there is one adult child from his marriage. He lives alone. At the time of his arrest, he had a clear record. He admits that he consumed drugs and was a habitual user and addict.
Ms Lai has said all she can say on his behalf in mitigation. His best mitigation is his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity. By way of explanation in mitigation, I have been told he committed these offences because of financial difficulty arising from the COVID pandemic period. I have seen the defendant’s letter and its contents. His age and previous clear record have been stressed.
Sentencing
Let me deal with Count 2. As far as Count 2 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 and applicable guidelines, 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 circumstances of the offence as well as the defendant himself.
The first step is to assess the gravity of the 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. That same authority also revised the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ‘Ice’. Where between 50 and 200 grammes of cocaine is trafficked, the starting point after trial should be between 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment. Here, we have 172.2 grammes of cocaine, having added up the cocaine of Count 2. Therefore, mathematically speaking, that amount of cocaine alone will attract a starting point of 11 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
The sentencing guidelines for ‘Ice’, revised in that same authority, and the starting point for trafficking between 5,000 to 15,000 grammes of ketamine, will be between 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically speaking, the total weight of 6,890 grammes of ‘Ice’ here alone will attract a starting point of 24 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
I will take into account the two types of drugs that I have referred to above. It is a cocktail of drugs. The individual approach would be unfair here. I take the view that the combined approach should be adopted here, using ‘Ice’ as the base drug. I intend to convert the cocaine into ‘Ice’ to find a mathematical starting point. After the conversion, I calculate a total of 6,974.87 grammes of ‘Ice’, which would attract a mathematical starting point of 24 years and 7 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 when he admitted under caution that he stored and delivered ‘Ice’ as directed by a recruiter and cooked crack cocaine. He admits that the crack cocaine was for the purposes of trafficking. He does not suggest otherwise in mitigation.
The prosecution accepts 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 the mitigation, I accept it and I will take the view he was, in this case, a courier, a storekeeper and a cook. Bearing in mind the fact that he has been charged with manufacturing as well, Count 1, I will not take that last role or job into account. Strictly speaking, it is not part of trafficking dangerous drugs anyway, but an entirely separate offence. I would not enhance the starting point of Count 2, taking into account his last role as a cook or manufacturer, because the sentence for Count 1 will reflect it instead.
This means the starting point of Count 2 is to be determined by the relevant tariffs and quantity of dangerous drugs involved. This is for the third step. I find it appropriate for Count 2 to take a starting point of 24 years and 6 months’ 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.
The defendant’s timely plea means he will benefit from a one-third discount. When I apply that discount to the starting point of 24 years and 6 months for Count 2, the defendant is sentenced to 16 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. I will reduce this by a further 4 months for his age and previous clear record.
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.
Count 1
Those involved with manufacturing dangerous drugs play a more significant role than a mere courier or storekeeper. It is a more serious offence than trafficking per se. After all, it can reasonably be inferred that more dangerous drugs were or would be manufactured, packed and delivered 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 been referred to and refer 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 the drugs at the manufacturing premises, as well as the role played by the defendant.
I have referred myself also to HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2022] 3 HKLRD 408, where the Court of Appeal has laid some guidelines for, in particular, the scale of the operation concerned.
Since we have a quantifiable amount of cocaine in this case, the guidelines for trafficking cocaine is relevant. As I have said above, mathematically, the starting point for trafficking in 172.2 grammes of cocaine is 11 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
I do take into account premises have been set up for 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, as I have said, I accept it was not a sophisticated large-scale operation.
Taking into account those factors I find relevant, it is appropriate to take a starting point of 13 years and 3 months for the manufacturing charge, Count 1. I have increased the mathematical starting point of trafficking that amount of cocaine by 2 years to reflect the facts and seriousness of this manufacturing charge.
After applying a discount of one-third to that starting point of 13 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, for Count 1, the defendant is sentenced to 8 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
In conclusion and accordingly, I sentence the defendant as follows. For Count 1, I sentence the defendant to 8 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. For Count 2, I sentence the defendant to 16 years’ imprisonment.
Taking into account the totality principle, the facts of this case, the substantial starting point of Count 2, previous mitigation, including the defendant’s clear record at the age of 62, I will order both sentences to be served concurrently. Therefore, the defendant will serve a total of 16 years’ imprisonment.