HKSAR v. HO KWAN HO, HUGO

HCCC 150/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 150 OF 2025

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty on 24 April 2025 to three charges and was committed to the Court of First Instance today. Today he confirms his pleas and admission of the Summary of Facts.

For Charge 1, the defendant has admitted trafficking in 477 grammes of a solid containing 399 grammes of cocaine on 2 February 2024 at the platform of Level 3, Sun Ning Building (Block G), Shatin Centre, Sha Tin.

For Charge 2, defendant has admitted trafficking in 1,898.89 grammes of a solid containing 145.96 grammes of cocaine, 998 grammes of a solid containing 883 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride and 5.84 grammes of a solid containing 4.59 grammes of ketamine on the same day, 2 February 2024 at Flat H, 16th floor of Sun Ning Building.

For Charge 3, the defendant admits unlawfully manufacturing a dangerous drug, namely cocaine, on or about 2 February 2024 in the same premises as for Charge 2.

On the material day, police officers were conducting an anti‑narcotics operation in the vicinity of Sun Ning Building. On CCTV, they observed the defendant taking a lift from the 16th floor of that building downstairs and they intercepted him at the L3 platform.

In the plastic bag the defendant was carrying, they found the drugs of Charge 1. He was arrested for trafficking and under caution said he was delivering the cocaine to B Gor.

Keys were found on the defendant and he was subsequently taken back upstairs to Flat H on the 16th floor. Those keys opened the door and in one of two rooms the police found the drugs of Charge 2 and paraphernalia associated with manufacturing cocaine base from cocaine hydrochloride. The defendant had been cooking crack cocaine in the premises. Paraphernalia including baking powder, water, paper towels, spoons, bowls, pots, and an electronic cooker. All ingredients or utensils commonly used for that process.

The defendant was arrested for trafficking in the premises and admitted that the drugs found there were from B Gor. He said after cooking the cocaine he would deliver them in packets to B Gor.

The defendant admits that the estimated retail price of the cocaine found at that material time was $1,417,964.28 and the ketamine was $2,001.24.

Mitigation

The defendant was 18 years old when arrested, was unemployed at the time and living with his family. He is a young man with a criminal record. He has five previous convictions from four court appearances. He has been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs twice already before the age of 19.

In 2021, he was convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs and failing to produce proof of identity on demand. At about the same time, he was convicted of theft.

His last conviction was only last year, 28 April 2025, where he was sentenced to 35 months’ imprisonment by the District Court for again trafficking in dangerous drugs. That offence occurred on 14 August 2023 and he was granted bail on 16 August 2023. In this present case, he was arrested about six months later, on 2 February 2024. Therefore, he committed these present very serious offences whilst on bail. This is an aggravating factor I will take into account.

Mr Hui urges me to make today’s sentences partially concurrent to the sentence imposed by the District Court 10 months ago. He submits that to make the sentences for both cases wholly consecutive would be draconian and heavy.

Mr Hui has said all he can possibly say on behalf of the defendant in mitigation. I have received a letter from the defendant’s father and the defendant himself. I have taken on board their contents. The best mitigation is the defendant’s plea at the earliest opportunity.

Sentencing

As far as Charges 1 and 2 are 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 the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

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, where between 500 and 1,500 grammes of cocaine is trafficked, the starting point after trial should be between 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Here we have 1,427.96 grammes of cocaine, having added the cocaine of both Charges 1 and 2 together. Therefore, mathematically speaking, that amount of cocaine alone will attract a starting point of 19 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

The sentencing guidelines for ketamine is found in the authority of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, and the starting point for trafficking between 1 to 10 grammes of ketamine will be between 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically speaking, the total weight of 4.59 grammes of ketamine here alone will attract a starting point of 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

I will take into account there are two types of drugs I have referred to above, a cocktail of drugs. The individual approach would be unfair here. I take the view that the combined approach should be adopted here, using cocaine as the base drug as it is the most potent and serious drug. I intend to convert the ketamine into cocaine to find a mathematical starting point. After the conversion, I calculate a total of 1,430.62 grammes of cocaine, which will attract a mathematical starting point of 19 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

I intend to take a global approach and I have added up the amount of drugs in both Charges 1 and 2. This would be a case where if charged with more than one count, because of the facts, sentences would be wholly concurrent.

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 had cooked cocaine powder to make the more profitable crack cocaine. Once he had done it, manufactured it, it would be delivered as instructed. He was supplied all of the paraphernalia and drugs to manufacture crack cocaine and paid for taking this risk in his own home. He was paid on top of this to deliver drugs.

I accept that there is no evidence to suggest this was a large-scale operation, therefore I will treat it as an unsophisticated small-scale operation.

Having heard mitigation, I accept the mitigation and I will take the view he was a courier, storekeeper, and a cook. Bearing in mind the fact that he has been charged with manufacturing as well, Charge 3, I will not take that last job or role 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 for Charges 1 and 2, taking into account this last role as a cook or manufacturer, because the sentence for Charge 3 will reflect it instead.

This means the starting point for Charge 1 and 2 is to be determined by the relevant tariffs and quantity of dangerous drugs involved for the third step. I find it appropriate to take a starting point of 19 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.

As I have said already, the fact he committed these offences whilst on bail for a similar offence is an aggravating factor. And I will enhance the starting points for each charge by 6 months to reflect this aggravating factor.

The defendant’s timely plea means he will benefit from a full one-third discount. When I apply that discount to the starting point of now 20 years’ imprisonment for Charges 1 and 2, the defendant is sentenced to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

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.

I come to Charge 3. Those involved with manufacturing 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 were or were to 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 heavier than those for trafficking offences.

I have referred myself to the authority of 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 drugs at the manufacturing premises, as well as the role played by the defendant. I have also referred myself 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 and the starting point I considered appropriate for Charges 1 and 2 is relevant. I take into account premises had been set up for the 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, I accept it was not a sophisticated large-scale operation nor was the defendant, although he was the cook, not the mastermind or sole operator.

Taking into account those factors I find relevant, it is appropriate to take a starting point of 21 years and 6 months for the manufacturing charge, Charge 3. I have increased the starting point of trafficking that amount of cocaine and ketamine by 2 years to reflect the seriousness of this manufacturing charge. I further increase that starting point by 6 months to reflect the aggravating factor of committing these offences whilst on bail for a similar offence.

After applying a discount of one‑third to that starting point of 22 years’ imprisonment for Charge 3, the defendant is sentenced to 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

In conclusion, I repeat, accordingly I sentence the defendant as follows. For Charge 1, I sentence the defendant to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. For Charge 2, I sentence the defendant to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. For charge 3, I sentence the defendant to 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Taking into account the totality principle and the facts of this case, I will order that the sentences for Charges 1, 2 and 3 be served concurrently. Therefore, the defendant will serve a total of 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

The defendant is presently serving a 35-month term of imprisonment imposed in DCCC 571/2024 on 28 April 2025. This sentence was imposed for one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs. Defence counsel, Mr Hui, has urged me to order part of today’s sentence to run concurrently with that imposed by the District Court. The offences in these two cases do not arise out of the same incident. In fact, they arise out of wholly unrelated facts or incidences.

However, taking into account the length of today’s sentences, I will order 1 year of Charge 3 to be served concurrently with DCCC 571/2024 and the balance consecutively.