HKSAR v. TANG HOI LAM

HCCC 128/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 128 OF 2026

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to three charges: Counts 1 and 2 for trafficking in dangerous drugs[1]; and Count 3 for manufacturing of a dangerous drug[2], she was committed, on 23 March 2026, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. She confirmed her pleas and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and her convictions were duly recorded.

2.  The Particulars of the charges are as follows:

(1) Charge 1alleged that the Defendant on 5 November 2024, outside Flat F7, 23^rd Floor, Block F, Tak Bo Garden, No. 3 Ngau Tau Kok Road, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon (“the Flat”) unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 71.6 grammes of a solid containing 65.2 grammes of cocaine.

(2) Charge 2 alleged that the Defendant on 5 November 2024, at the Flat, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 98.01 grammes of a solid containing 86.1 grammes of cocaine, and 0.36 gramme of a solid containing 0.26 gramme of cocaine hydrocholoride.

(3) Charge 3alleged that the Defendant, between 21 October 2024 and 5 November 2024, both dates inclusive, at the Flat, unlawfully manufactured dangerous drug, namely, cocaine.

FACTS

3.  The facts of the case that the defendant have admitted can be summarized as follows for the present purpose.

For Charge 1

4.  On 5 November 2024, the police conducted an anti-narcotics operation and laid ambush at the staircase where the Flat was located.  At about 8:45 pm, the Defendant entered the Flat.    About two minutes later, she left the Flat carrying a black handbag.  The police intercepted her outside the Flat for enquiry and search.

5.  Upon search, the following items were found inside her black handbag: -

(a) one plastic bag containing 4 plastic bags containing a total of 71.6 grammes of a solid containing 65.2 grammes of cocaine;

(b) one resident card of Tak Bo Garden;

(c) a bunch of 5 keys; and

(d) one iPhone.

6.  The Defendant was then arrested and cautioned for "Trafficking in a dangerous drug". Under caution, she admitted that the crack cocaine wasintended for sale (this is the subject of Charge 1).

Charge 2 and 3

7.  The Defendant was then brought back to the Flat for further investigation using one of the keys found on her.  A house search was conducted in the Flat under a search warrant.

8.  The Flat was a one-bedroom flat with a living room, a kitchen and a bathroom.  Upon search, the police found and seized, inter alia, thefollowing items from the Flat: -

From the kitchen: -

(1) On the kitchen bench: -

(a) traces of a solid, subsequently confirmed to be 0.01 grammes of a solid containing cocaine, adhered inside the sink;

(b) one cassette stove with one gas canister containing 0.02 grammes of a solid containing cocaine hydrochloride next to the built-in stove;

(c) one metal pot with a lid and a pair of chopsticks containing a total of 0.04 grammes of a solid containing cocaine placed on the cassette stove;

(d) one opened paper box with a spoon containing 19.2 grammes of a solid containing sodium bicarbonate;

(e) two paper boxes containing a total of 935 grammes of a solid containing sodium bicarbonate;

(f) one glass bowl containing 0.02 grammes of a solid containing cocaine placed on the right burner gate of the built-in stove;

(g) one heat sealer; and

(h) one smart camera.

(2) Hanging on the wall (next to the cassettes tove): -

(a) one metal sieve containing traces of a solid containing cocaine; and;

(b) one pair of scissors containing-traces of a solid containing cocaine.

(3) On the floor (just under the built-in stove): -

(a) one plastic box containing 1.18 grammes of a solid containingsodium bicarbonate.

(4) Inside the kitchen cabinet: -

(a) two metal bowls and one metal spoon containing a total of 0.21 grammes of a solid containing 0.15 grammes of cocaine;

(b) two ceramic bowls, one plastic bowl and one glass bowl containing a total of 0.33 grammes of a solid containing 0.31 grammes of cocaine;

(c) one plastic sieve containing traces of a solid containing cocaine;

(d) one plastic bowl containing traces of a solid in which substances controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134 (“the Ordinance”) were not detected;

(e) 4 plastic bags containing a total of 94.9 grammes of a solid containing 83.4 grammes of cocaine;

(f) one plastic bag containing 2.33 grammes of a solid containing 2.12 grammes of cocaine;

(g) one plastic box with a lid containing 0.14 grammes of a solid containing 0.13 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride;

(h) one metal ladle containing 0.19 grammes of a solid containing 0.13 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride; and

(i) one box of transparent re-sealable plastic bags.

From the living room: -

(5) On top of the refrigerator: -

(a) two plastic containers containing traces of a solid containing cocaine;

(b) 4 pairs of chopsticks; and

(c) 7 packs of transparent re-sealable plastic bags.

(6) On the table: -

(a) traces of a solid, subsequently confirmed to be 0.01 grammes of a solid containing cocaine;

(b) one electronic scale and one pair of scissors, each containing traces of a solid in which substances controlled under the Ordinance were not detected;

(c) two plastic containers containing a total of 0.01 grammes of a solid containing cocaine; and

(d) 4 packs of transparent re-sealable plastic bags.

(7) On the windowsill: -

(a) two electronic scales, each containing traces of a solid containing cocaine;

(b) one electronic scale containing traces of a solid in which substances controlled under the Ordinance were not detected;

(c) one plastic container containing 0.01 grammes of a solid containing cocaine hydrochloride;

(d) one plastic box with a lid containing 0.15 grammes of a solid containing 0.12 grammes of cocaine;

(e) one electronic scale;

(f) 4 packs of transparent re-sealable plastic bags;

(g) 4 transparent re-sealable plastic bags;

(h) one smart router; and

(i) one smart camera.

9.  In addition, one air-conditioner filter containing traces of cocaine, two boxes of gloves and 5 butane cartridges were found in the living room.

10.  From the above, a total of 98.01 grammes of a solid containing 86.1 grammes of cocaine, and 0.36 grammes of a solid containing 0.26 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride were found and seized from the Flat (this is the subject of Charge 2).

11.  The Defendant was further cautioned for "Manufacturing a dangerous drug". Under caution, she admitted that she received HK$5,000 as a reward for cooking cocaine on each occasion. (This is the subject of Charge 3)

12.  In the subsequent video-recorded interviews, the Defendant stated under caution, inter alia, that: -

(a) She acquainted with a male known as" Ah Kit" at Lan Kwai Fong. Ah Kit learnt that she was in need of money and hence gave her aphone number of an upper line ("X").

(b) X instructed her to sell the cocaine.

(c) She first went to the Flat on 21 October 2024. At that time,there was raw cocaine in the Flat. X sent her some messagesand a video clip teaching her how to cook cocaine. She did notkeep the messages and the video clip in her mobile phone. Butshe had captured some relevant conversations.

(d) X also instructed her to change the door lock of the Flat. Only she kept the keys to the Flat.

(e) The tutorial video clip demonstrated how to manufacture cocainewith a gas stove. She was instructed on the procedure on manufacturing the cocaine.

(f) X also sent her some messages instructing her to mix 100 grammesof cocaine with 35 grammes of baking soda and 80 grammes ofwater.

(g) She only bought two electronic scales and one heat sealer whereasother utensils for manufacturing cocaine were already in the Flat.

(h) the cocaine had to be weighted before it was poured into the container. Thereafter, 35 grammes of baking soda were added into thecontainer, followed by 80 grammes of hot water. After stirringthe mixture with chopsticks, the container would then be placedon a gas stove for heating. She took the solidified cocaine to the table in the living room for drying. The drying process took about one day.

(i) On 23 October 2024, she returned to the Flat and divided the solidified cocaine. She packed the cocaine into packets of about 24 grammes each. She also wrote down. "250" on the packets as one gramme was for the weight of the plastic packet. She then left the Flat.

(j) About one or two days later, she was instructed to give the cocaine to a courier who then sold the cocaine to others.

(k) Between 21 October 2024 and 5 November 2024, she had delivered cocaine to the courier on 4 occasions and one of which was on 3 November 2024. She could not remember the dates of other occasions.

(l) The courier contacted her via WhatsApp call. He drove the same private car on all occasions and she gave him the cocaine in the car outside a food stall on Ngau Tau Kok Road.

(m) She then received HK$5,000 cash as a reward on each occasion from the courier.

(n) She did not have a habit of taking drugs.

(o) She intended to deliver the drugs found on her to the courier. The drugs found in the Flat were stock. She manufactured and packed the drugs found in the Flat.

13.  During the 2^nd video-recorded interview, the iPhone seized from the Defendant was shown to her and she stated under caution, inter alia, that: -

(a) she confirmed Ah Kit's phone number;

(b) she confirmed X's phone number.

(c) X taught her how to cook cocaine.

(d) X also instructed her to move the table to a designated location in the living room of the Flat so that X could monitor her via CCTV camera.

(e) She used the paraphernalia found in the Flat for cooking cocaine.

(f) On the first day (i.e. 21 October 2024), she cooked a total of 929 grammes of cocaine in the Flat on 9 occasions. She cooked about 100 grammes of cocaine on each occasion except the last time during which she cooked about 127 grammes of cocaine.

(g) X instructed her to divide the cocaine into 33 packets each containing about 24 grammes of cocaine; and 11 packets each containing 12 grammes of cocaine. After packing the cocaine, she was instructed to write down the weight of the cocaine on the plastic packets, take photos on them and send the same to X.

(h) She had delivered 10 packets of 24 grammes of cocaine and one packet of 12 grammes of cocaine to the courier.

(i) On 23 October 2024, X instructed her to deliver two packets of 24 grammes of cocaine to the courier while the courier gave her back 3 packets of 24 grammes of cocaine. She was instructed to repack those 3 packets of cocaine because the weight of them was incorrect.

(j) There was a WhatsApp chat group entitled “數” (literally means “number”) in her mobile phone. She was instructed to report the daily quantity of cocaine which she had delivered to the courier in the chat group.

(k) On 29 October 2024, she delivered 3 packets of 24 grammes of cocaine and two packets of 12 grammes of cocaine to the courier. Meanwhile, the courier returned one packet of 24 grammes of cocaine to her.

(l) On 5 November 2024 (i.e. the day of arrest), she was instructed to deliver two packets of 24 grammes of cocaine and two packets of 12 grammes of cocaine to the courier by 8:30 p.m.

14.  A Forensic Scientist attended the Flat for inspection on 5 November 2024, and concluded that the chemicals and paraphernalia seized from the scene were items commonly associated with the process of making cocaine base from cocaine hydrochloride and the said process hadtaken place at the scene.

15.  The CCTV record from the smart camera seized from the kitchen captured that the Defendant cooking cocaine in the kitchen in the following two periods:

(a) between 5:26 p.m. and 7:13 p.m. on 21 October 2024; and

(b) between 9:37 p.m. on 21 October 2024 and 1:24 a.m. on 22 October 2024.

16.  The CCTV record from the smart camera seized from the living room captured that the Defendant entered and left the Flat for multiple times between 25 October 2024 and 5 November 2024 and that the Defendant was theonly person who had attended the Flat in the concerned period.

17.  The estimated street value of all the dangerous drugs seized wasabout HK$137,142 (in powder form) or HK$205,834 (in crack form).

18.  The Defendant now admits and accepts that at the material times she unlawfully trafficked in all the dangerous drugs seized from her and from the Flat.

19.  The Defendant also admits and accepts that she manufacturedcocaine in the Flat in the material period.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

20.  The Defendant has a clear record in Hong Kong.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

21.  The Court received detailed and helpful submissions from Mr Tommy Ho in mitigation.

22.  In summary, the Defendant is now 25 years old and single. She was born in Mainland China and came to Hong Kong in 2003. In Hong Kong, she has received education up to Form 5.  Her parents divorced when she was in primary school.  Thereafter she lived under the same roof with her father and aunt. 

23.  Before she was arrested, she was living with her mother and worked as a veterinary nurse, earning about $18,000 per month.  Her father was working as a driver in the transportation industry and her mother was a sales person.  She used to give each of her parents $2,000 per month.

24.  Shortly before the Defendant was arrested, she found out that her mother owed some banks heavy debts.   The Defendant wanted to help her mother to repay the loans and therefore looked for opportunities to earn some quick money.  This was confirmed by her mother’s mitigation letter in which she stated at the material time, the mother was heavily indebted to banks and financial institutions. She sought financial assistance from the Defendant. The pressure placed upon the Defendant as a result led her to commit the offences.

25.  It was in these circumstances, that when the Defendant met “Ah Kit” who invited her to manufacture dangerous drugs for him, she foolishly agreed to do so.  She then quit her job and started to manufacture cocaine on 21 October 2024 in the Flat.  It was expected that she would be given a reward of $15,000 after the delivery of the cocaine on 5 November 2024.

26.  By reason that she was arrested, the Defendant never obtained any money from Ah Kit.

27.  Following her detention, she witnessed firsthand how dangerous drugs devastate addicts and realized the permanent harm they inflict on users. After deep reflection, she has become genuinely remorseful for her misconduct and pledges not to re-offend.

28.  During her detention, the Defendant has made constructive use of her time by completing a course on nutrition for young children (“Nutrition for Pregnant Women and Babies” offered by the School of Continuing and Professional Studies).  She is determined to contribute positively to society by bringing happiness to children.  She respectfully implores the Court to consider her remorse, rehabilitation, and commitment to change, and to pass a lenient sentence.

SENTENCING

29.  As recently explained by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Au Chun Wah [2026] 2 HKLRD 1035 at §40: “it would normally be prudent to assess the seriousness of the manufacturing offence first and make it the anchor of the sentence before considering sentence for the accompanying offence(s) of trafficking. By doing so, the sentencing court will run less of a risk of double-counting the manufacturing element.”

30.  Therefore I shall deal with Count 3 first.

Charge 3

31.  Applying the principles laid down in HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2022] 3 HKLRD 408 §§30-32.  The starting point for drug manufacturing offences should not necessarily be linked to the starting point for drug trafficking offences with the same quantity of drugs and there should be no fixed proportion between the two.  But there is no doubt that sentences for drug manufacturing offences are heavier than those of drug trafficking offences involving the same quantity of drugs.

32.  The starting point for manufacturing offences must be based on the overall circumstances of individual cases.  The quantity seized at the manufacturing workshop must be a relevant factor as that showed, to some extent, its size and productivity, and reflected the seriousness of the offence.  Further, the length of time the workshop had operated, its scale and productivity, the quantity and standard of manufacturing paraphernalia, the extent of the defendant’s participation and role were all important factors.  I shall deal with various factors in turn.

33.  In this case, as revealed by the summary of facts, the scale of the workshop cannot be described as large, productive and long-running.  It comprises of a small one-bedroom flat.  The paraphernalia and tools which the experts opined were used for the manufacturing process, included metal pots, bowls, spoons, electronic scale, heat sealer and stove.  I agree with Mr Ho’s observations that these apparatuses were rather basic and unsophisticated as opposed to “high standard” manufacturing paraphernalia.  The Flat itself was a simple domestic premises and was not a sophisticated workshop with considerable scale and productivity.

34.  From the evidence before the Court, although the present case was not a “one-off” manufacturing act, as the Defendant admitted that she cooked cocaine “on 9 occasions” (i.e. 9 times) on the first day (i.e. 21 October 2024), it does not appear from the evidence that she continued to manufacture more cocaine after those 9 times.

35.  The duration of the manufacturing was from 21 October 2024 and ended on 5 November 2024 upon the Defendant’s arrest.  Its operation was therefore limited and did not involve a large amount of chemicals. The quantity of “raw materials” were also not large as in the case of HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777.

36.  This brings the Court to the role played by the Defendant.  The evidence shows that the Defendant played the basic low-level role in the manufacturing operation, acting under the instructions of another.  She was not the one who rented the Flat nor the one who arranged for most of the apparatus therein.  There is no evidence that the Defendant played “two active roles as both producer of the dangerous drug and as retailer of those drugs to the public” as described in Au Chun Wah §42. The Defendant was working for someone else up the chain.

37.  During that short 16 days period, from the Defendant’s own admission:

(1) She produced 33 packets each containing 24 grammes of cocaine (this is assumed to be the weight of the solid rather than the weight of the cocaine content);

(2) She produced 11 packets each containing 12 grammes of cocaine (again this is the weight of the solid);

(3) The total is therefore 792 grammes + 132 grammes = 924 grammes of solid.

(4) This accords with the Defendant’s admission that she “cooked” 929 or 927 grammes of cocaine altogether for the 9 occasions.

(5) The Defendant delivered 10 packets of the 24 grammes cocaine and 1 packet of the 12 grammes cocaine to the courier on one occasion (therefore she should have had 23 packets of 24grammes and 10 packets of 12 grammes remaining);

(6) On 23 October 2024, she then delivered 2 packets of 24 g but that courier returned 3 packets of the 24grammes to her (therefore she should have had 24 packets of 24 grammes and 10 packets of 12 grammes remaining)

(7) On 29 October 2024, she delivered 3 packets of 24 grammes and 2 packets of 12 grammes to the courier, but the courier returned 1 packet of 24 grammes to her (therefore she should have had 22 packets of 24 grammes and 8 packets of 12 grammes remaining).

(8) On 5 November 2024, she took with her 2 packets of 24 grammes and 2 packets of 12 grammes as instructed to deliver to the courier. This accords with the amount of drugs subject of Charge 1 (i.e. 71.6 grammes solid containing 65.2 grammes of cocaine). But it is noted that the actual total weight of the solid is less than the total as stated on the packets.

(9) In the Flat there should have remained a quantity of drugs (solid) equal to 20 packets of 24 grammes and 6 packets of 12 grammes. But this does not accord with the drugs eventually seized from the Flat which were in fact less in terms of quantity.

38.  At this juncture, it is instructive to refer to some of the principles applicable to “conspiracy to traffic” when the sentencing court is tasked to sentence a defendant where the quantity of dangerous drugs (whether trafficked or manufactured) cannot be precisely quantified. 

39.  In HKSAR v Wong Tsz-hin [2026] HKCFI 3289 (a case concerning  conspiracy to manufacture a dangerous drug), the learned Deputy Judge considered cases such as HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing [2017] 5 HKLRD 799, HKSAR v Chan Kam Loi (CACC 410/2012) and HKSAR v Chung Yat Ho (CACC 367/2010) and held that: “Despite these cases concern the offence of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs, I am of the view that the underlying principles if applicable are relevant in the process of gauging the degree of seriousness of the case and culpability of the defendant.”  He held that the salient matters to take into account include: -

(1) If the quantity of the drug involves is known, it provides the court with a ready means of identifying the appropriate starting point, though quantity is not the only factor relevant to assessment of gravity.

(2) If the quantity of the dangerous drug is unspecified, the sentencing court must do its best to arrive at a starting point based on inferences and assumptions probably derived from the particular facts of the case.

(3) Unless the facts which give rise to the inferences and assumptions are clear cut, the court will inevitably lean in favour of the defence.

(4) If the account provided by the defendant is to be taken into account, the court should note the possible margin of variation and uncertainty in the account.

(5) The appropriate degree of purity of the narcotic being manufactured.

(6) If applicable, the fact that but for the admission of the defendant, the prosecution would not have known the details of the conspiracy.

40.  With respect, I agree with this approach, which can also be utilized in a case of manufacturing of dangerous drugs where the quantity of the drugs may be unspecified such as this case.

41.  The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ki Chun Pong [2019] 1 HKLRD 717 at [23] held that: -

“In a conspiracy to traffic in an unspecified quantity of dangerous drugs, 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. Unless clear-cut, such inferences and assumptions would inevitablylean in favour of the defence.”

42.  In HKSAR v Chung Ka Lun [2018] 4 HKLRD 229, the Court of Appeal (in the context of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs) held at [41]: “When the evidence was not sufficient for the sentencing court to arrive at a precise quantification of the quantity of drugs involved, reasonable assumptions and allowances most favourableto the defendant should be made…”. The Court further held that, in that case, it would be unrealistic to adopt a strictly arithmetic approach to a defendant's general and imprecise evidence as to the quantity of dangerous drugs used in theconspiracy.

43.  In HKSAR v Chan Kam Loi (CACC 410/2012) the Court observed that in cases of inchoate offences such as conspiracy to traffic: -

“The evidence may not always allow of precise quantification but it may be possible to reach a view of the very least that was trafficked by recourse to inferences drawn from the evidence or assumptions based on the evidence. Such a course is permissible as long as the inferences and assumptions are based upon evidence and do not become mere speculation with no evidential foundation. Whether the evidence and the inferences that are drawn from it enable the Court to have recourse to the quantity based sentencing bands will inevitably vary from case to case. But sight should not be lost of the ultimate goal which is to make an accurate assessment of the gravity of the offence so as to enable the Court toimpose a just sentence.”

44.  These principles are instructive when the Court, as in this case, is tasked with doings its best to arrive at a starting point based on the evidence and inferences / assumptions properly derived from the particular facts in the case (including the admissions by the Defendant) where the precise amount of drugs cannot be quantified.  Because ultimately the goal (whether for a conspiracy charge or a manufacturing charge) is the same, it is “to make an accurate assessment of the gravity of the offence so as to enable the Court toimpose a just sentence”.

45.  In this case, I agree with Mr Ho’s submission that although the Defendant’s admissions refer to very specific quantification of the amount of cocaine she “cooked”.  The numbers themselves appear to be inconsistent and inaccurate.  Indeed, the courier had to return 4 packets of cocaine to her in total due to incorrect weight (which one must assume to mean it was of less weight than represented).   This is also supported by the fact that the total weight of the drug solid for Charge 1 is again less than what should have been packed by her.

46.  In the circumstances, I agree with Mr Ho that the numbers given by the Defendant or derived from her admissions, whether it be 929 grammes or 927 grammes or 924 grammes, appear to be inaccurate and inflated.  Therefore I am prepared to adopt the 900 grammes solid as the figure proposed by Mr Ho.

47.  The next step is to determine the purity of the solid to work out the quantity of cocaine.  The purity of the cocaine in Charge 1 is 0.91 (65.2 ÷ 71.6) and in Charge 2 is 0.87 (86.1 ÷ 98.01).  I am prepared to adopt the lower percentage of purity for the purposes of computation of the quantity of cocaine manufactured.

48.  Under this analysis, the quantity of the cocaine manufactured by the Defendant should be about(900 grammes x 0.87) = 783 grammes.

49.  Under the guideline band as per HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, trafficking in cocaine between 500g to 1500g is 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment.  On a purely arithmetical approach, 783 grammes of cocaine will lead to 17 years and 1 months’ imprisonment.

50.  This starting point has to be increased because this is a case of manufacturing, “which generally requires a greater sentence than for trafficking”[3]. Taking into account the circumstances of the case and the role of the Defendant.  I consider that 18 years and 1 months’ imprisonment to be appropriate as the notional sentence after trial.

51.  There are no aggravating factors applicable in this case.

52.  Given the seriousness of the drug manufacturing offence, the strongest mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is her guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, she is entitled to the full one-third discount.  Resulting in a sentence of 12 years.

53.  In addition, as rightly pointed out by Mr Ho, the full extent and level of the manufacturing may be difficult to establish but for the Defendant’s admissions in her interviews. 

54.  As recognised by the Court, the fact that but for the admission of the defendant, the Prosecution would not have known the existence or details of the drug related offence is a mitigating factor.  This factor should be taken into account in sentencing.  It appears this can be done in a number of ways as seen most prominently in “conspiracy to traffic” cases.

55.  For example in HKSAR v Yung Chi-hang [2026] HKCFI 489 a further 5% discount was given for this factor; in HKSAR v Gong Jiaming [2023] HKCFI 3132 and HKSAR v Siu Lap-fung [2023] HKCFI 791 – a further discount resulting in a total of 38.5% discount including guilty plea was given; in HKSAR v Yeung Siu Yan [2025] HKCFI 1364, HKSAR v Li Ka-kan [2024] HKCFI 2968 and HKSAR v Hong Tsz-ho [2024] HKCFI 1572 – the estimation of the drugs involved in the conspiracy was adjusted downwards to take into account this factor, following the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tsang Ka Wing [2017] 5 HKLRD 799 at para41.  In HKSAR v Wong Tsz-hin [2026] HKCFI 3289 (although dealing with a conspiracy to manufacture drugs) a further 16 months discount was given in addition to the 1/3 reduction for guilty plea.  InHKSAR v Tong Ho-wan [2025] HKCFI 1033 the starting point was adjusted downwards to take into account this factor.

56.  In Wong Tsz-hin (supra), the learned Deputy Judge observed that “The defendant gave quite a detailed account of his involvement and the quantity of drug involved. It is not a case where without his confession there is no evidence to reveal this offence. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove a case of manufacturing. That said without his confession there is no evidence to indicate the extent of the operation. For this reason and also that this is the first time the defendant is convicted of any offence, I am prepared to give the defendant a further discount of 16 months.”

57.  I shall adopt the same approach.  Reducing the sentence by a further 16 months in this case, which results in a final sentence of 10 years and 8 months for Count 3. 

58.  Having analysed the manufacturing offence’s sentence in this case as the “anchor”, I will now turn to the trafficking offences Charges 1 and 2.

Charges 1 and 2

59.  As the Court of Appeal explained in HKSAR v Lam Chi Wa [2009] 1 HKLRD 483 at [38] and HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei CACC 389/2013 §27, the sentencing approach where two or more counts of drug trafficking are charged and the offences occur on the same day but the reason for there being two or more charges as opposed to one is primarily that the drugs are located in different places.  The sentencing court should add the total of the active ingredient of the drugs together to arrive at a notional starting point, then impose sentences on both offences for that total, making the sentences concurrent with one another.  Separate sentences still have to be imposed and so the judge imposes the same sentence for both offences.  See also HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777 para 36.

60.  This applies to the present case for Charge 1 and Charge 2, therefore I shall deal with them together using the total quantity of dangerous drugs involved when applying the six-step sentencing approach under Herry Jane Yusuph[4] and to adopt a global starting point for both charges based on the combined quantity of drugs.

61.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for trafficking in dangerous drugs is life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

62.  The six-step sentencing approach introduced by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[5], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[6], are applied.

63.  The quantity of drugs for Charges 1 and 2 include 151.3 grammes of cocaine and 0.26 gramme of cocaine hydrocholoride, the total quantity of cocaine narcotics is therefore 151.56 grammes.

64.  The guideline band applicable to the total quantity of cocaine narcotics of 151.56 grammes falls under the “50 - 200 g: 8 to 12 years” as per HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138. 

65.  On a purely arithmetical approach 151.56 grammes of cocaine will lead to 10 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

66.  For the cocaine the subject of Charges 1 and 2, I find that the “trafficking” is “incidental to the manufacturing process” as explained in Au Chun Wah §43, there the Court of Appeal accepted as a matter of common sense on the particular facts of the case that:

“…the act of manufacturing does not simply end with the physical creation of the dangerous drug in a cooker or, as in either of the cases before us, the adulteration of cocaine into crack cocaine. The whole process of manufacture will inevitably involve the manufacturer putting what he has created or adulterated into bags or packages following production and handing it over to whoever may have given the instructions for its production. Provided his conduct comes within the entire process of manufacturing the product, which is serious enough, there should be no warrant for further penalising him for trafficking in (in the sense of dealing with) the same…”

67.  Having already considered the appropriate sentence for the Defendant’s role as a manufacturer, I will not take this into account as an aggravating factor when sentencing her for the trafficking counts.

68.  There being no other factors making the Defendant’s role and culpability for the trafficking counts more serious, I shall treat her as mere courier or storekeeper for Counts 1 and 2 to avoid double-counting.

69.  Therefore after steps 1 to 3 of Herry Jane Yusuph, the starting point for charges 1 and 2 is 12 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

70.  For Step 4 of Herry Jane Yusuph concerning aggravating factors.  I do not find any other aggravating factors applicable to the Defendant.  The notional sentence after trial is therefore 12 years and 10 months’ imprisonment at this step.

71.  For step 5 of Herry Jane Yusuph, the only applicable mitigating factor is her guilty plea for which she is entitled to 1/3 discount.  As a result, the sentence is reduced to 8 years and 6 months imprisonment.

72.  For step 6, totality, I consider the sentences imposed for Charges 1 and 2 to be just, fair and balanced in all the circumstances.

OVERALL TOTALITY

73.  As the Court of Appeal explained in HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777:

“34. We respectfully agree that whether a judge looks at a series of different offences as a single transaction, or whether and to what extent some of the offences add to the defendant’s criminality on the principal offence, is a matter of common sense. We also accept that it may not often make any practical difference whether the judge reflects the fact of another offence or offences in the sentence for the principal offence, making all other sentence(s) concurrent, or whether he adds a consecutive element for the other offence(s) to the principal offence; provided the judge has a careful eye to overall totality. Common sense and an overall appreciation of the criminality involved ought to dictate which mechanism the judge employs.

35. If we apply these three considerations to the case before us, we are of the view that this was a course of serious criminal conduct, all of which was obviously inter-related, and all of which occurred on the same day, at the same time and in essentially the same place. It was a dangerous drugs manufacturing operation, in which the principal offence particularised was Count 4, while the drugs to be trafficked were particularised in Counts 2 and 3. The facts of this particular case called for an assessment of the gravity of the most serious count, namely Count 4, by reference, among other things, to the quantities of dangerous drugs in Counts 2 and 3. Since the quantities of dangerous drugs in Counts 2 and 3 were to be taken into account in assessing the appellant’s criminality on Count 4, it was important that the making of partly consecutive sentences did not inflate the overall sentence when using the same quantity of dangerous drugs to arrive at both the starting point for trafficking and the starting point for manufacturing. The better and safer course, given that Counts 2 and 3 obviously derived from, and were inextricably linked with, Count 4, was to make all sentences concurrent.”

74.  These observations apply directly to the present case as Counts 1 and 2 (the trafficking counts) obviously derived from, and were inextricably linked with, Count 3 (the manufacturing count). 

75.  Therefore,I order that:

(1) For Charge 1, the Defendant is sentenced to 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

(2) For Charge 2, the Defendant is sentenced to 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The sentences for Charge 1 and 2 be served wholly concurrently.

(3) For Charge 3, the Defendant is sentenced to 10 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. The sentences for Charge 1 and 2 to be served wholly concurrently to that of Charge 3.

FINAL SENTENCE

76.  Accordingly, the Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for a total of 10 years and 8 months.