HKSAR v. NG KA MAN AND OTHERS

HCCC 398/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 398 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charges

1.  On 13 November 2025, each of the three defendants pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The 1^st defendant (“D1”)  pleaded guilty to the 1^st charge which involved 55 grammes of a solid containing 46.51 grammes of cocaine and 99.23 grammes of a solid containing 82.81 grammes of ketamine.  The 2^nd and 3^rd defendants (“D2” and “D3”)  pleaded guilty to the 2^nd charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs which involved 21.5 grammes of a solid containing 18.78 grammes of cocaine, 156.28 grammes of a solid containing 123.83 grammes of ketamine and 10.56 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 9.72 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. On the same day, the three defendants admitted a Summary of Facts dated 25 September 2025 and they were committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, D1 and D2 confirmed their guilty pleas and their admission of the Summary of Facts.  On the other hand, the sentencing hearing for D3 was adjourned to 15 June 2026 before this Court.

Facts Admitted

2.  The facts of the present case can be summarized as follows. 

3.  On 7 December 2022, plainclothes police officers mounted an anti-narcotic operation at the carpark of a hotel in Tin Shui Wai, New Territories (“the Hotel”). They spotted D1 carrying a sling bag and holding some plastic bags and walking hastily.  They intercepted D1 and searched her.  A key card of Room 756 of the Hotel (“Room 756”)  was found from D1’s front trousers’ pocket.  D1 was thus taken to Room 756 for investigation.

4.  Police officers entered Room 756 with D1’s key card and conducted a search there.  In summary, a total of 55 grammes of a solid containing 46.51 grammes of cocaine and 99.23 grammes of a solid containing 82.81 grammes of ketamine together with various packaging paraphernalia were found and seized in Room 756.  

5.  When arrested and cautioned, D1 admitted that the dangerous drugs seized were hers and she only did the packaging.

6.  On the same day, the staff of the Hotel attempted to use the key card of Room 767 (“Room 767”)  to open the door to Room 767 for the police to enter to conduct a search inside.  However, as the door was locked by a security lock from the inside, police officers had to use a tool to break the security lock in order to enter Room 767.  Upon entering Room 767, police officers found D2 standing outside the toilet, and another female standing near the television.

7.  Police officers then conducted a search in Room 767 in the presence of D2.  In summary, a total of 21.5 grammes of a solid containing 18.78 grammes of cocaine, 156.28 grammes of a solid containing 123.83 grammes of ketamine and 10.56 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 9.72 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride together with various packaging paraphernalia were found and seized in Room 767.  The police also found two drug inhaling devices with traces of methamphetamine in Room 767.

8.  When arrested and cautioned, D2 remained silent.

9.  According to the Hotel’s records, D1 was the registered tenant of Room 756 between 18 November 2022 and 7 December 2022; whereas D3 was the registered tenant of Room 767 between 21 November 2022 and 7 December 2022.  CCTV recordings captured that each of D1, D2 and D3 had frequently attended both Room 756 and Room 767 for the period between 26 November 2022 and 7 December 2022.

10.  In two subsequent video-recorded interviews, D1 admitted under caution, inter alia, that she would use a spoon to put the drugs into small plastic bags and sealed them with the sealing machine; the electronic scale, sealing machines and plastic bags in Room 756 were bought by her and they belonged to her; the drugs were given to her on the street about 2 days ago by a female whom she did not know; and after packaging the drugs, she would deliver them to a person.

11.  In December 2022, the estimated street value of all the dangerous drugs seized in Room 756 was between HK$103,248 and HK$114,743; and the estimated street value of all the dangerous drugs seized in Room 767 was between HK$114,357 and HK$119,161.

12.  In the Summary of Facts, D1 admitted that she had possessed all the cocaine and ketamine seized in Room 756 for the purpose of unlawful trafficking; whereas D2 admitted that she possessed all the cocaine, ketamine and methamphetamine hydrochloride seized in Room 767 for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Background and mitigation regarding D1

13.  D1 is currently 32 years old and single.  Her father works as a delivery worker and her mother manages the household.  D1 has an elder brother and a younger sister who is a social worker.

14.  D1 completed secondary education up to Form 6.  After leaving school, she took up various jobs but she ceased employment after giving birth to her son in 2017.  D1’s son is now eight years old and he has been diagnosed with autism and is now being cared for by D1’s mother.

15.  After giving birth, D1 suffered from a gynaecological condition and she was diagnosed with depression and began receiving psychiatric treatment.  She gave birth at the age of 24 and has been a single mother ever since, and has struggled with the challenges of caring for her son.  She still has psychiatric consultations in prison every two months. 

16.  Regarding the present offence, D1 stated that she acted foolishly and made a poor decision because she needed money to support her son’s living expenses.  Although she has no previous criminal convictions, she admitted that she has a past history of usage of the dangerous drug of ketamine.

17.  D1 has provided three mitigation letters, one written by herself, one by her mother and another from a Ms Tang of the Hong Kong Christian Kun Sun Association Limited.  They spoke of D1’s deep remorse and asked the Court to give D1 a chance to start afresh and reintegrate into society.

18.  Before and during her remand, D1 actively engaged in educational and rehabilitative programmes with the intention of rebuilding her life, improving her skills and preparing herself for a stable, responsible and law-abiding future upon release.

Background and mitigation regarding D2

19.  D2 was born in Hong Kong and she is currently aged 36.  D2 only completed Form 1 education when she was kicked out of school.  At about the age of 16, she gave birth to her son and she entrusted her mother to take care of him.  D2 separated from the natural father of her son when the son was around 2 to 3 years old.  D2’s son is now studying in university. 

20.  D2’s father died in January 2025 when D2 was in remand for the present case and her mother is now 71 years old.

21.  Before D2’s arrest, she was living with her mother and other family members in a public housing unit in Tin Shui Wai.  Because of limited space there, D2 always stayed outside with her boyfriend, D3 in the present case.

22.  After she left school, D2 joined the work force mainly working as a saleslady or a waitress; at the time of her arrest, she was a part-time waitress earning $300 per day.  

23.  D2 has a total of 4 previous convictions for “possession of dangerous drugs” recorded between 2016 and 2021, for which she was sentenced to the DATC twice.  She also has 2 previous convictions for theft and one for misleading a police officer, all recorded in 2022 for which she was sentenced to a total term of 10 months’ imprisonment.

24.  D2 was released from DATC in early 2017, but she became acquainted with D3 in 2018 and they became lovers, and she was persuaded to deal with dangerous drugs again.  D2 was thus sent to DATC again in 2021.  

25.  After D2 was released from custody in 2022, she started to stay overnight with D3 who had the habit of renting different hotels at low rates.  In late October 2022, D2 met a person named “Siu Ming” who used to sell her “ice” at a good price.  D2 succumbed to the temptation and resumed her drug habit.  “Siu Ming” then asked D2 to deliver dangerous drugs so that she could earn quick money.  As D2 was scared of being stopped by the police, she refused.

26.  “Siu Ming” then asked D2 to assist in packaging the dangerous drugs and he would deploy others to do the delivery.  D2 thought such an idea less risky and thus she agreed.

27.  After her arrest and remand for the present case, D2 gave deep thoughts to her wrong-doing.  In the beginning of her remand, her son did visit her but not after he was admitted to the university.  D2 was overwhelmed with joy and pride when she learned that her son became a university student.  But when he failed to visit her, it saddened D2 and made her rethink about her past behaviours and life style.  The Court was told that D2 has now really decided to turn a new leaf so as not to lose her son again, believing that her son has distanced himself from her as he feels ashamed of having a mother in prison.

28.  D2 has written a letter herself in mitigation, expressing her deep remorse for the offence and her regret for not being able to spend the last moments with her father before he passed away.  She also asked for leniency so that she can be released early to properly take care of her mother and her son.

Sentence

29.  In sentencing D1 and D2, I will follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

The 1^st charge against D1

30.  When more than one type of dangerous drugs are involved in a trafficking offence, the court will adopt a combined approach in sentencing.  As explained in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013, there are three means of cross-checking whether a sentence is manifestly inadequate, namely, the absurdity test, the ratio test and the conversion test.

31.  For the 1^st charge against D1, the absurdity test will result in an overall starting point of about 10 years and 1 month; whereas the ratio test will lead to a starting point of about 8 years and 1 month, and the conversion test will yield a starting point of about 8 years and 8 months.  In the circumstances of this case as regards D1, I am prepared to apply the test most favourable to D1, namely the ratio test, in identifying the starting point for the 1^st charge.  I shall therefore use a term of 8 years and 1 month’s imprisonment as the overall starting point. 

32.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of D1 based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court.  In short, the dangerous drugs were packaged by D1 in Room 756 to be delivered to others.

33.  The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band D1 should come.  In my assessment, D1’s role was that of a storekeeper and courier. 

34.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  It is an aggravating factor for an accused to traffic in more than one type of dangerous drugs “because in such a situation the trafficker is able to cater to a far wider market than the trafficker in only one kind of drug.” (See HKSAR v Yim Hung Lui Ricky, CACC 266/2011, and HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644).  I will enhance the starting point of 8 years and 1 month by 2 months, taking it to 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. 

35.  The fifth step is to take into account the mitigating factors, if any.  Given the seriousness of the trafficking offence, the only real mitigating factor in D1’s case is her guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, she is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the overall sentence down from 8 years and 3 months to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 

36.  Lastly, I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and D1. Accordingly, D1 is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 5 years and 6 months.

The 2^nd charge against D2

37.  For the 2^nd charge against D2, the absurdity test will result in an overall starting point of about 12 years and 5 months; whereas the ratio test will lead to a starting point of about 8 years, and the conversion test will yield a starting point of about 8 years and 11 months (if all drugs are converted to ketamine).  In the circumstances of this case, I will apply the test most favourable to D2, namely the ratio test, in identifying the starting point for the 2^nd charge.  I shall therefore use a term of 8 years’ imprisonment as the overall starting point. 

38.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of D2 based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court and the mitigation submissions advanced on her behalf.  In short, the dangerous drugs were packaged and stored by D2 in Room 767.

39.  The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band D2 should come.  In my assessment, D2’s role was that of a storekeeper. 

40.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  As aforesaid, it is an aggravating factor to traffic in more than one type of dangerous drugs.  For the 2^nd charge, three types of dangerous drugs were involved.  I will enhance the starting point of 8 years by 3 months, taking it to 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.  D2 has four previous convictions of possession of dangerous drugs.  Within about 8 months of being released from custody in April 2022, D2 committed the subject trafficking offence, which is an aggravated form of drug-related offence.  I shall further enhance the starting point by 3 months because of that, taking it to 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 

41.  The fifth step is to take into account the mitigating factors, if any.  Given the seriousness of the trafficking offence, the only real mitigating factor in D2’s case is her guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, she is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the overall sentence down from 8 years and 6 months to 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. 

42.  Lastly, I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and D2. Accordingly, D2 is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 5 years and 8 months.