HKSAR v. YIU HUNG KIT

HCCC 55/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3833

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 55 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

THE CHARGES

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to two charges before a Magistrate on 26 January 2026 and was committed to this Court for sentence. The charges are as follows:

(a) Charge 1 - Trafficking in dangerous drugs: On 22 November 2023, at the staircase, 29^th Floor, Tower 6, Harbour Green, No. 8 Sham Mong Road, Tai Kok Tsui, he unlawfully trafficked in 2,540 grammes of a solid containing 2,241 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride and 69.4 grammes of a solid containing 67.9 grammes of cocaine.

(b) Charge 2 - Manufacturing of a dangerous drug: On the same date, at Flat G, 30^th Floor, Tower 6, Harbour Green, No. 8 Sham Mong Road, Tai Kok Tsui (“the Flat”), he unlawfully manufactured cocaine.

2.  The Defendant appears before me today for sentence, having confirmed his guilty pleas to both charges and admission of the Summary of Facts.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

3.  On 22 November 2023, police officers conducted an anti-narcotic operation and laid ambush outside the Flat. At about 3:10 pm, police officers intercepted the Defendant when he was leaving the Flat, with a rucksack. Upon search, a total of 2,241 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride and 67.9 grammes of cocaine were found and seized from the Defendant.

4.  Under caution, the Defendant said he trafficked in dangerous drugs to repay his debts.

5.  With the keys found on the Defendant, police gained entry to the Flat where more dangerous drugs, i.e. 472.05 grammes of cocaine and 259.74 (257 + 2.74) grammes of cocaine hydrochloride, were found. In addition, items such as metal pots, metal spoons, glass bottles, an electronic heater, electronic scales, re-sealable plastic bags for manufacturing and packaging the dangerous drugs were also found inside the Flat.

6.  Under caution, the Defendant admitted that all the dangerous drugs belonged to him. A guy called “Lou Gor” (佬哥) taught him how to cook the drugs.

7.  The estimated street value of all the cocaine seized was approximately HK $3,563,463 (in powder form) or HK $3,806,165 (in crack form).

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

8.  The Defendant is a 25-year-old single male. He left school after Form Six. Prior to the arrest, he was unemployed. At the time of the offences, he had a clear criminal record.

9.  During his oral mitigation, the defence provided this Court with such documents as mitigation letters written by the Defendant and his family members, as well as a number of certificates.

10.  Mr. David Ma, Counsel for the Defendant, accepts that the nature of Charge 2 (i.e. manufacturing of a dangerous drug) is more serious than that of Charge 1 (i.e. trafficking in dangerous drugs). However, Mr. Ma submits, the amount of dangerous drugs found in the Flat was not extraordinarily large and the materials for manufacturing were not massive. The Flat was only of modest (or modestly small) scale and limited productivity. There is also no evidence to prove the exact duration in which the Flat was used and adopted for manufacturing purposes.

SENTENCING

11.  The Court of Appeal has recently laid down the proper sentencing approach in a case which involves manufacturing dangerous drugs  and trafficking in dangerous drugs. The sentencing Court should begin with the manufacturing count, as it is the more serious offence in nature. By doing so, the Court could avoid double counting — see: HKSAR v Au Chun Wah and Lau Siu Fung [2026] 2 HKC 1212.

Charge 2 - Manufacturing a dangerous drug

12.  Manufacturing is an offence of greater gravity than trafficking. A person involved in manufacturing is “nearer to the source of evil than a trafficker” and deserves a heavier sentence (R v Cheng Wai Kwong [1997] 3 HKC 496). It can be reasonably inferred that more dangerous drugs were, and would be, manufactured, packed, and delivered than those that were found and seized at the time of the defendant’s arrest. 

13.  In sentencing, this Court should adopt a holistic assessment for the charge of manufacturing a dangerous drug. As elucidated in HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2021] HKCA 181, quantity of drugs seized is not the sole consideration in determining a starting point although it relates to the scale of the operation. The Court should also consider other factors, such as the length of operation, the scale and productivity of the workshop, the capacity of the equipment found, as well as the role played by the defendant.

14.  In the present case, the evidence points to a fully operational, albeit not industrial scale, premises used for manufacturing dangerous drugs. I accept there is no evidence that directly suggests the exact duration in which the Flat was used and adopted for manufacturing purposes, or its total output prior to the arrest. However, the amount of dangerous drugs found in the Flat was significant. This quantifiable amount of cocaine found in the Flat (472.05 grammes + 259.74 grammes), which is independent from the subject matter of Charge 1, is of course a highly relevant factor when it comes to the seriousness of Charge 2.

15.  Chemicals (i.e. 1,478.83 grammes of a solid containing phenacetin and 75 millilitres of a liquid containing phenacetin), materials and paraphernalia fitting for manufacturing, such as processing tools, heating apparatus (i.e. one electronic heater, a pan and seven metal pots, inter alia) and packaging materials were found at various locations in the Flat. All these indicate that the Flat had been set up for the manufacturing process and would have been continuous if not interrupted. This can be distinguished from cases of renting a hotel room for one night to cook dangerous drugs. Having said that, I accept that it was not a large-scale operation and that there is no evidence that there were other participants in the manufacturing process. The Defendant was the cook as well as the sole apparent operator for manufacturing cocaine.

16.  In accordance with the principle in Cheng Chi Wai, if the workshop was of a considerable scale and productivity, involving a large amount of chemicals and significant manufacturing paraphernalia, and the manufacturing was continuous, the appropriate sentence should not be less than 20 years’ imprisonment. In his written mitigation submission, Mr. Ma asked this Court to consider adopting a starting point of 25 to 27 years for Charge 2. In his oral submission, Mr. Ma submits that 24 years would probably be sufficient as the appropriate starting point. His calculation is based on a 3 years and 1 month upward adjustment from the starting point of Count 1. In my judgment, applying the relevant principles to the facts of the present case, the appropriate starting point for Charge 2 is 24 years’ imprisonment. 

17.  The Defendant is entitled to a full one-third discount. This reduces the sentence for Charge 2 from 24 years to 16 years’ imprisonment.

Charge 1 - Trafficking in dangerous drugs

18.  I adopt the six-step approach set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

Step One: Trafficking Guideline

19.  The total narcotic content of cocaine involved in Charge 1 amounts to 2,308.9 (2,241 + 67.9) grammes of cocaine /cocaine hydrochloride, which falls into the revised guideline band of 1,500 to 5,000 grammes with a starting point of 20 to 24 years of imprisonment, according to HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234.

20.  On a purely arithmetical calculation, the notional starting point for Charge 1 would be 20 years 11 months’ imprisonment.

Step Two: Role and Culpability

21.  I accept that there is no evidence to suggest that the Defendant was the mastermind or sole organiser. Under caution, he admitted that he trafficked in dangerous drugs because he was in debt. I take the view that he was a courier, storekeeper, and a cook. Bearing in mind that the Defendant has already been charged with manufacturing cocaine inside the Flat, i.e. Charge 2, I would not enhance the starting point for Charge 1, for being a cook or manufacturer, to avoid double counting.

Step Three: Starting Point

22.  It follows that the starting point for Charge 1 is 20 years and 11 months’ (i.e. 251 months’) imprisonment.

Step Four: Aggravating Factors

23.  The scale of the operation is reflected in Charge 2. There are no separate aggravating factors for Charge 1.

Step Five: Mitigating Factors

24.  The only mitigating factor is the Defendant’s timely plea of guilty, for which he is entitled to the full one-third discount.

Step Six: Overall Sentence

25.  After applying the discount, the sentence of the Defendant is reduced to 13 years and 11 months’ (i.e. 167.33 months’) imprisonment for Charge 1.

TOTALITY OF SENTENCE

26.  I must now consider how these sentences should run. I am of the view that the Defendant did not play any roles other than a manufacturer and storekeeper/ courier. In light of the principles enunciated in Au Chun Wah& Anor (supra), I consider that the sentences of both Charge 1 and Charge 2 should run concurrently with each other.

ORDER

27.  Accordingly, the Defendant is sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment.