COURT: This case involved two defendants, both jointly charged with three counts. The 1st count, manufacturing a dangerous drug. The 2nd count, trafficking in dangerous drugs; and the 3rd count, possession of dangerous drugs.
Both pleaded not guilty in Eastern Magistracy on 4 September 2023 and were both committed to the Court of First Instance for trial. The 1st defendant, Awais Mohammad, changed his plea and indicated on 20 November 2024 that he intended to plead guilty to all three counts.
The 1st defendant did plead guilty and admitted the Summary of Facts drafted for him on the first day of the 2nd defendant’s trial, 2 December 2025. The 1st defendant’s sentencing hearing was adjourned to today.
The 2nd defendant, Khan Junaid’s trial concluded yesterday when he was found not guilty of manufacturing dangerous drugs and simple possession of dangerous drugs - that is Counts 1 and 3 - but was found guilty by a unanimous jury on Count 2, trafficking in dangerous drugs.
I intend to proceed to sentence both defendants together.
The arrest of both defendants on 26 November 2020 came about as a result of information received by the police that there was drug-trafficking activity at Room G, 1st Floor, 66 Fuk Wing Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon. Police conducted an operation that night, targeting that room, armed with a search warrant.
At about 11.30 pm, a woman knocked on the door, and when the 2nd defendant opened it, the police rushed in. They intercepted the 1st, 2nd defendant and the woman.
The premises were searched, and large quantity of cocaine was found, the drugs of Count 2. Specifically, both defendants were accused of unlawfully trafficking in 567.41 grammes of a solid containing 270.13 grammes of cocaine, 4,040 grammes of a material containing 27.3 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride, and 95.5 grammes of a solid containing 53.2 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride.
I repeat. The jury found the 2nd defendant guilty of this count, Count 2.
The police, having observed the premises, suspected that it was set up for the purposes of drug manufacturing and called a government chemist to come to the scene. She arrived within hours and confirmed that from the equipment, paraphernalia and suspected cocaine found there, manufacturing ‘crack’ cocaine from cocaine hydrochloride had taken place in the premises; hence, Count 1 against both the 1st and 2nd defendants.
Under the bunk bed, the police found a small quantity of herbal cannabis and 25 ‘Ecstasy’ tablets; hence, Count 3 against both the 1st and 2nd defendants.
The evidence the prosecution relied on and agreed upon by the 1st defendant was that Room G was in the 1st defendant’s name and the female arrested but not charged. All the equipment was strewn all over the toilet/kitchen and floor. Containers containing drugs, similarly, were visible. The drugs of the 3rd count were in a covered container under the bed with a small electronic scale, the usual transparent resealable plastic bags we see drugs packed in and two notebooks. Without a doubt, the notebooks contained records of drug transactions and deliveries.
As far as the 2nd defendant is concerned, his phone, the prosecution relied on his phone containing a video sent out to somebody on a WhatsApp on 25 November 2020, the day before their arrests. The video was not produced in court but a screenshot of the video was an exhibit. It depicts someone filtering yellow liquid into buckets, into a bucket from a cut-off plastic bottle, which the prosecution suggest it was part of the drug-manufacturing process.
In my view, the scene was almost identical to the toilet/kitchen of the photos of Room G taken the next day. The 2nd defendant gave evidence that it was another place altogether, and he was filming someone brewing alcohol.
One of the notebooks seized and exhibited was labelled with the 2nd defendant’s surname twice and his initials once. As I have said, without a doubt, it contained records of drug transactions and deliveries. His evidence was that it did not belong to him and his names were common in Pakistan. I myself do not believe in such a coincidence.
The 2nd defendant gave a video-recorded interview voluntarily to the police, and in it, he said he had his own premises but did not live there. He had been sleeping in Room G for a few days. This was information he freely revealed. It was not in answer to a question from the police. In his oral evidence, he denied that that is what he meant to say. He had never slept there overnight. In my view, he was only trying to distance himself from that admission.
Mitigation
Mr McGowan has said all he can possibly say on behalf of the 1st defendant in mitigation for Counts 1, 2 and 3. He appreciates that the defendant did not plead guilty at the earliest opportunity and is therefore not entitled to a full one-third discount. He urges me to consider not less than a 25 per cent discount from the appropriate starting point.
The 1st defendant was 20 years old at the time of his arrest and had a clear record in Hong Kong. He is a Hong Kong resident. He was unemployed at the time of his arrest and was offered a thousand dollars a day to help with the manufacturing-‘crack’-cocaine process. He was too tempted by the money and committed these offences. He was offered the money by people older than him and lured into these crimes.
It has been stressed he is not the mastermind, not the financier and not the chemist. He is remorseful and asks for leniency.
The 2nd defendant is now 29 years old, single and an asylum seeker from Pakistan. He has been in Hong Kong for 10 years. He has a clear record in Hong Kong.
Similarly, Mr Khosa has said all he can possibly say on behalf of the 2nd defendant for the purposes of sentencing him following the jury’s verdict for Count 2.
Sentencing
I will first deal with Count 1, manufacturing a dangerous drug. Those who manufacture dangerous drugs 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 had been or could have or were to be manufactured, packed and delivered than those found at the time of the house search. In this case, having looked at the notebooks, it would appear that drug transactions and deliveries date back to at least August 2020.
It is a well-known principle that sentences for manufacturing offences are heavier than those of trafficking offences. I have referred myself to R v Cheung Wai Kwong & Another [1997] HKLRD 344. In manufacturing cases, the quantity of drugs seized is not the sole consideration in determining the 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 1st defendant. I have also referred to HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2022] 3 HKLRD 408 where the Court of Appeal has laid down some guidelines for, in particular, the scale of the operation concerned.
Mr McGowan has urged me to consider the operation here was unsophisticated and had a small scale. In addition, the Room G was rented in the 1st defendant’s name just under six months prior to his arrest. At most, the operation was up and running for that period of time. It is more than likely that Room G was rented for that specific purpose.
Since we have a quantifiable amount of cocaine in this case found in Room G, that is a total of 350.63 grammes of cocaine, the guideline for trafficking cocaine becomes relevant. I take 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 350.63 grammes of cocaine attracts a starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment. This will be the guideline applicable to Count 2.
Now, I do take into account the premises had been rented, and the manufacturing process would have been continuous if not interrupted. There was a significant amount of cocaine in the premises. That could have been manufactured by the defendant. This was not a case of renting a hotel room for one night to cook ‘crack’ cocaine. However, I do accept that it was not a large-scale operation. Nor is there any evidence that the 1st defendant was a mastermind or sole operator. I am sure he was not.
So considering these factors, the amount of cocaine found and the starting point for the cocaine seized, I will take a starting point of 16 years’ imprisonment for Count 1 for the 1st defendant.
I turn to Count 2. Both defendants were jointly charged with possessing in total 350.63 grammes of cocaine in Room G. And I repeat the 1st defendant pleaded guilty, and the jury found the 2nd defendant guilty by unanimous verdict.
I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs, with the Court of Appeal’s guidance in the 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 290.
In the approach to sentencing, a number of steps have been identified which the court should take, such as assessing the gravity of the offence and applicable guideline, identifying defendants’ roles, where within the guideline defendants 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 defendants.
The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guideline according to the drug. As I have said above already, according to the latest guidelines, trafficking in this amount of cocaine will mathematically attract a starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment.
I have no evidence that other than the 1st defendant cooking ‘crack’ cocaine, which I will ignore for the purposes of sentencing Count 2 because that role has been reflected in the sentence for Count 1, either defendant played a more significant role than acting as storekeepers and couriers. As I have said, I take the notebooks seized as records of evidence of drug deliveries.
Since I am unable to attribute a more serious and culpable role to either defendant, therefore I find the mathematical starting point applicable for Count 2.
And the fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors. The one factor relevant is only applicable to the 2nd defendant.
The fact he is a Form 8 holder, not a Hong Kong resident, is an aggravating factor. For that reason, I intend to enhance the starting point of 14 years for Count 2 by 15 months’ imprisonment. For the 2nd defendant, I will take a starting point of 15 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
As for Count 3, possessing dangerous drugs, namely, 0.38 grammes of cannabis in herbal form and 25 tablets containing 2.64 grammes of MDMA (‘Ecstasy’), I have taken into account HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik [2001] 1 HKC 261 and the Court of Appeal’s view that the starting point for mere possession of a quantity of dangerous drugs which a bona fide user would normally have in his possession should be in the range of 12 to 18 months.
There was also the latent-risk factor to consider. That is the latent risk to society when drugs are at large. In this case, the 1st defendant is already associated with manufacturing and trafficking cocaine. The latent-risk factor can justify an enhancement to a starting point. For this charge, Count 3 of possession of dangerous drugs, I will take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment.
In conclusion, for the 1st defendant, I will reduce the starting points of each count by 25 per cent to reflect the timing of the 1st defendant’s plea. After that discount is applied to each count, the 1st defendant is sentenced as follows. For Count 1, I take a starting point of 16 years’ imprisonment and reduce it by 25 per cent to reflect his plea. After that discount is applied, the 1st defendant is sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.
For Count 2, I take a starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment and reduce it by 25 per cent to reflect his plea. After that discount is applied, the 1st defendant is sentenced to 10 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
For Count 3, I take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment and reduce it by 25 per cent to reflect his plea. After that discount is applied, the 1st defendant is sentenced to a rounded-down sentence of 1-year-and-1-month imprisonment.
I have considered the facts of this case and the totality principle. I will order that for the 1st defendant, the sentences for Counts 1, 2 and 3 be served concurrently. Therefore, the 1st defendant is sentenced to a total of 12 years’ imprisonment.
I consider the last step and although this is a substantial term of imprisonment for Count 2, in light of the circumstances of the offence as well as the defendant, I do not consider it to be unjust, unfair and imbalanced.
For the 2nd defendant, as I have said above, I take a starting point of 15 years and 3 months’ imprisonment for Count 2. He was convicted after trial, and I see no reason to consider any discount to that starting point. Even after considering the last step of the six steps, I see no reason to reduce this sentence.
Therefore, the 2nd defendant is sentenced to 15 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
Can I ask if both defendants understand those sentences? Please stand up. 1st defendant.
INTERPRETER: D1 understood the sentence.
COURT: Yes.
INTERPRETER: D2 understood the sentence, your Honour.