The defendant, Leung Ching-ho, pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs (1st charge) and one of conspiracy to manufacture a dangerous drug (2nd charge) and admitted the facts pertaining to the charges in the court below, and he was committed to the High Court for sentence. He confirmed his guilty pleas and admission of the facts before me.
The defendant committed the 1st charge on 14 June 2023 at Room 816, 8th Floor, Kowloon Harbourfront Hotel, No. 8 Hung Luen Road, Hung Hom, Kowloon. The charge concerns:
(1) 79.9 grammes of a solid containing 58.33 grammes of cocaine;
(2) 1,041.15 grammes of a solid containing 973.61 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride; and
(3) 790 millilitres of a liquid containing 0.56 grammes of a solid upon drying containing 0.31 grammes of cocaine.
The defendant committed the 2nd charge between 4 June 2023 and 14 June 2023. He conspired with other persons to unlawfully manufacture cocaine during the offence period.
The Facts
The Summary of Facts dated 13 June 2025 reads:
“1. On the afternoon of 14 June 2023, a team of police officers including DPC19258 (PW1) and DPC25385 (PW2) mounted an anti-narcotics operation against the premises at Room 816, 8/F, Kowloon Harbourfront Hotel in Hung Hom (the “Room”) and ambushed outside the Room.
2. At about 1804 hours on the same day, the police officers saw a female (A) leaving the room and immediately went forward to intercept her. A was then brought back to the Room,which comprised a kitchen, a living room, a toilet and two bedrooms. The police found D and another male (B) to be present in the Room. D, who was found inside the toilet of the Room, was seen squatting before the washbasin and stirring something inside a pot with a spoon. When asked by PWl what he was doing, D immediately put down the items and appeared to be nervous. D was then brought out of the toilet by PW1.
3. On the strength of a search warrant and in the presence of D, the police conducted a search of the >Room and found the following items in the Room:
On a table in the living room:
(1) totally 30 packets (Exhibit 1 to 6 and 32) of dangerous drugs;
(2) an electronic scale (Exhibit 7) containing traces of dangerous drugs;
(3) a pair of scissors (Exhibit 8) containing traces of dangerous drugs;
(4) multiple resealable plastic bags;
Inside the toilet:
(5) totally nine plastic bags (Exhibit 15 and 16) containing dangerous drugs;
(6) a plastic bag containing another plastic bag (Exhibit 17) containing a solid;
(7) an electronic scale (Exhibit 18) containing traces of dangerous drugs;
(8) an electric cooker (Exhibit 19), a metallic dish (Exhibit 20) and a metallic spoon (Exhibit 21) containing traces of dangerous drugs;
(9) a metallic pot (Exhibit 22) containing liquid with a metallic spoon;
(10) a metallic pot with a glass cover (Exhibit 25) containing dangerous drugs;
(11) two metallic sieves and a broken handle (Exhibit 28) containing traces of dangerous drugs;
(12) a blender base (Exhibit 29) containing traces of dangerous drugs;
(13) a device (Exhibit 30) containing traces of dangerous drugs;
(14) a paper box (Exhibit 31) containing solids;
(15) a box of gloves;
(16) a lighter;
(17) three banknotes (Exhibit 41) with traces of dangerous drugs; and
On a desk inside a bedroom:
(18) four banknotes (Exhibit 42) with traces of dangerous drugs.
4. At about 1825 hours on the same day, PWl arrested D for the offences of manufacturing a dangerous drug and trafficking in a dangerous drug. Under caution, D stated that he helped other people to bring the “raw” stuff to the room and that the dangerous drugs and paraphernalia found in the Room all belonged to him.
5. At about 2040 hours on the same day, Government Chemist Dr Chow Lok-fung (PW7) attended the Room for an inspection.
6. Upon subsequent examination by PW7, it was found that:
(1) Exhibit 1 to 6 and 32 (30 packets) contained a total of 1,034.7 grammes of a solid containing 967.5 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride:
(2) Exhibit 15 and 16 (nine plastic bags) contained a total of 85.45 grammes of a solid containing 57.9 grammes of cocaine and 6.11 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride;
(3) Exhibit 7, 8, 18 to 21, 25 and 28 to 30 (various paraphernalia) contained a total of 0.87 gramme of a solid containing 0.43 gramme of cocaine;
(4) Exhibit 22 (a metallic pot) contained a total of 790 millilitres of a liquid containing 0.56 gramme of a solid upon drying containing 0.31 grammes of cocaine:
(5) Exhibit 31 (three banknotes) contained a total of 0.02 gramme of a solid containing cocaine;
(6) Exhibit 42 (four banknotes) contained a total of 0.01 gramme of a solid containing cocaine;
(7) Exhibit 17 (two plastic bags) contained 509 grammes of a solid containing phenacetin (a listed Part I poison); and
(8) Exhibit 31 (a paper box) contained 139 grammes of a solid containing phenacetin (a listed Part I poison) and sodium bicarbonate.
7. The exhibits referred to in paragraph 6 above contained a total of 79.9 grammes of a solid containing 58.33 grammes of cocaine, 1,041.15 grammes of a solid containing 973.61 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride, and 790 millilitres of a liquid containing 0.56 grammes of a solid upon drying containing 0.31 grammes of cocaine (collectively the “Drugs”, the subject matter of Charge 1).
8. According to PW7:
(1) cocaine commonly exists in two chemical forms, namely cocaine hydrochloride (the salt form) and cocaine base (the base form). “Crack” is the street name given to the base form of cocaine, which can be converted from the salt form by dissolving in water a suitable proportion of cocaine hydrochloride and an alkaline chemical such as sodium bicarbonate in a container. The chemical reaction could be speeded up by heating the mixture solution. The product would precipitate out upon cooling of the reaction mixture in form of lumps of solid, which are separated from the solution and dried for consumption;
(2) the cocaine hydrochloride found in Exhibit 1 to 6, 15, 16 and 32 and the sodium bicarbonate found in Exhibit 31, could be used as the starting materials for preparation of cocaine base;
(3) the solids found on the various paraphernalia (Exhibit 7, 8, 18 to 21, 22, 25 and 28 to 30) were all found to contain cocaine base, which could be the final product of the conversion process from cocaine hydrochloride;
(4) the two scales (Exhibit 7 and 18) were found to contain cocaine, indicating that these items could have been used to weigh the dangerous drugs;
(5) the other paraphernalia (Exhibit 19 to 22, 25 and 28), which were found to contain cocaine, could have been used in handling cocaine;
(6) phenacetin was also found in the solid containing cocaine base (Exhibit 18 to 21 and 25) but not in the solid of cocaine hydrochloride (Exhibit l to 6, 15, 16 and 32), indicating that the adulterating process using phenacetin could have taken place; and
(7) the electric cooker (Exhibit 19), which was found to contain cocaine base, could be a heating source for the conversion process.
9. Based on his inspection of the Room and examination of the items seized therefrom, PW7 opined that the manufacturing of cocaine base from cocaine hydrochloride had taken place in the Room.
10. In the subsequent cautioned video-recorded interviews, D stated inter alia that:
(1) the Drugs found in the room belonged to him, and he knew that the drugs were cocaine;
(2) the “raw” stuff that he mentioned to the police was cocaine, which he collected from an unknown person at the hotel lobby at about 1500 hours on the day of the arrest and brought to the Room for repackaging for delivery to other people. He would receive phone calls for further instructions;
(3) he would receive a reward of HK$10,000 for the job but he had yet to receive the money;
(4) the Room was rented under his aunt’s name, and he had been given the key card of the Room;
(5) A and B were his friends who he invited to the Room to consume dangerous drugs but they were not concerned in the drug trafficking business.
11. Upon enquiry by the police with D’s aunt, it was noted that the room was booked by D’s aunt for D, in which he was given the key card of the Room on 4 June 2023.
12. D now accepts and admits that:
(1) at the material time, he possessed the Drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking (Charge 1); and
(2) between 4 June 2023 and 14 June 2023, both dates inclusive, he conspired with other persons unknown to manufacture a dangerous drug, namely cocaine (Charge 2).”
Background of the defendant
The defendant is aged 22, born in China. He was unemployed at the time of his arrest. He was a drug addict. He lived with his mother and some relatives at the time of the offence.
In 2021, the defendant was convicted of an offence of possession of a dangerous drug and one of possession of articles with intent to destroy or damage property and he was sentenced to DATC.
Mitigation
I have considered all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Ms Yip in her written submissions. I have also read the mitigation letters written by the defendant and Reverend Father Wotherspoon.
Consideration
I have considered the following authorities placed before me by the defence and the prosecution:
Sentencing for Conspiracy to Manufacture a Dangerous Drug
(1) HKSAR v Wong Ping Kay [2002] 3 HKLRD 161;
(2) HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2022] 3 HKLRD 408;
(3) HKSAR v Chan Kam Loi (unreported CACC 410/2012, 30 January 2014);
Sentencing for Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug
(4) HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138;
(5) HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290;
(6) HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186:
Assistance given to Father John Wotherspoon’s Campaign
(7) HKSAR v Kilima Abubakar Abbas [2018] HKCA 602.
Charge 1
Charge 1 concerns:
(1) 79.9 grammes of a solid containing 58.33 grammes of cocaine;
(2) 1,041.15 grammes of a solid containing 973.61 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride; and
(3) 790 millilitres of a liquid containing 0.56 grammes of a solid upon drying containing 0.31 grammes of cocaine.
The total quantity of narcotics is 1,032.25 grammes.
The quantity of cocaine brings the case within the band of sentence of 500 to 1,500 grammes: 16 to 20 years.
The defendant admitted that the seized cocaine all belonged to him. He collected the raw stuff, that is cocaine, from an unknown person at the hotel lobby on the day in question and he brought the cocaine hydrochloride to the room for repackaging for delivery to other people pending instruction. He trafficked for monetary reward. The hotel room had been rented by the defendant’s aunt for his use since 4 June 2024. In my judgment, the defendant was in a much more serious and responsible position than a courier or storekeeper.
In my judgment, the defendant was in the upper end of the band of 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment.
On the facts, I adopt 18 years’ imprisonment as the notional sentence after trial.
The defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for his timely guilty plea, that would bring his sentence down to 12 years. There is no other valid mitigating factor apart from his guilty plea. Ms Yip cited Kilima Abubakar Abbas in support of her submissions that the defendant’s assistance to Father Wotherspoon’s campaign amounts to a mitigating factor. Kilima Abubakar Abbas was decided in 2018, the value of a defendant’s assistance to Father Wotherspoon’s campaign has been considered by the courts on many occasions since that case. In Herry Jane Yusuph, the Court of Appeal considered the issue and made it clear that sentencing judges had a wide and absolute discretion whether to give any discount at all for participation in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign, and how to quantify such discount, which could only attract a token discount at most.
Paragraph 126 of the judgment reads:
“126. This court has already made it clear that no more than a token discount can be given for this factor, which judges should assess realistically and with common sense. Whether they give any discount at all, or how they quantify a token amount, is a matter entirely within their discretion, which will not be lightly interfered with by an appellate court.”
Looking at the matter realistically and with common sense, I do not think Hong Kong people need to be reminded by the story of the defendant that manufacturing and trafficking of dangerous drug are serious criminal offences which would result in heavy custodial sentences. I admire the good work of Father Wotherspoon but in this case I am not prepared to give any discount for the defendant s assistance in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign.
In my judgment, a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for Charge 1 on a plea is fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances of the case.
For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 12 years’ imprisonment on Charge 1.
Charge 2
From the authorities, it is clear that in sentencing a defendant for the offence of manufacturing of dangerous drugs, the quantity of drugs found is relevant but it is not the only factor to be taken into consideration. In deciding the proper sentence for manufacturing, the court should also consider the scale of the operation, the capacity of the equipment, whether the manufacturing station had been producing or is likely to produce substantial quantities of dangerous drugs and the role played by the defendant. The same consideration applies when the charge is one of conspiracy to manufacture dangerous drugs.
In the present case, a hotel room was rented and used as the manufacturing station. The equipment seized, 973.61 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride and 648 grammes of phenacetin and sodium bicarbonate found show that the manufacturing station had great capacity to manufacture crack cocaine. In fact, 58.33 grammes of crack cocaine was found in the room.
The defendant was the person who manned the manufacturing station which had been used by the defendant since 4 June 2023. The raid took place on 14 June 2023. I do not accept Ms Yip’s submissions that the operation was not an ongoing one because there was no evidence that the defendant had been to the room before the afternoon of 14 June 2025.
In Cheng Chi Wai, the Court of Appeal considered the relevant sentencing considerations and appropriate starting points for drug manufacturing offences. Paragraph 27 of the judgment reads:
“27. It is evident in certain cases that with drug-manufacturing, even though only a small amount of drugs was seized, the starting point should not be lower than 10 years’ imprisonment. In R v Wong Chun Ping & Others [1984] HKLR 247, Chief Justice Roberts made the following suggestion on page 257 of his judgment:
‘88. We suggest for consideration of courts that only in exceptional cases, for instance if it is clear that the capacity of the equipment is very small, should a court consider a sentence of less than 10 years’ imprisonment, on a conviction of manufacturing dangerous drugs. Much higher sentences should be imposed if it is shown that the manufacturing station had been producing or was likely to produce substantial quantities of DD.
(An unofficial Chinese translation of the preceding paragraph also appeared in the original text.)’
28. In Cheung Wai Kwong, the Court of Appeal took the view that sentencing based on the quantity of drugs seized might be outdated. In that case, the amount of drugs seized by the police at the drug-manufacturing workshop was not large, as during the time the police took to break into the premises, the defendant had flushed some of the drugs down the toilet and cleaned the drug-manufacturing paraphernalia with water. As a result, the quantity of drugs seized by the police was not large.
29. The Court of Appeal ruled that the amount of drugs seized in a ‘drug-manufacturing’ case is only one of the factors to be taken into account in sentencing. The Court of Appeal also ruled that if the drug-manufacturing workshop was of a significant scale and very active, the starting point of the sentence would easily be in excess of 20 years.
30. This Court agrees that 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. The starting point for ‘drug-manufacturing’ offences must be based on the overall seriousness of individual cases.
31. The quantity of drugs seized at a drug-manufacturing workshop must be one of the relevant factors affecting sentencing as the quantity of drugs seized shows, to some extent, the size and productivity of the drug-manufacturing workshop, and it also reflects the seriousness of the offence.
32. However, apart from the quantity of the drugs seized, the length of time for which the drug-manufacturing workshop has existed and operated, its scale and productivity, the quantity and standard of drug-manufacturing paraphernalia, the extent to which the defendant participated in the drug-manufacturing and the role he played in the matter are all important factors to be taken into account in sentencing.
33. Should there be information which shows that the drug-manufacturing is one-off rather than a continuous act, a starting point slightly higher than the sentence for trafficking in the same quantity of drugs may be considered appropriate. However, this Court agrees with the approach adopted in Wong Chun Ping (supra) and reiterates that the starting point for ‘drug-manufacturing’ offences should not be less than 10 years’ imprisonment unless the act of drug-manufacturing was just nominal, for instance, only a one-off mixing and diluting of a small quantity of drugs without involving any sophisticated paraphernalia or a large amount of chemicals as raw materials.
34. If the drug-manufacturing act is a continuous act spanning over a period of time, and the drug-manufacturing workshop is of considerable scale and productivity involving a large amount of chemicals used for drug-manufacturing as well as a not insignificant quantity of high standard drug-manufacturing paraphernalia, the appropriate sentence should not be lower than 20 years’ imprisonment even if the quantity of drugs seized on the spot was not substantial.
35. This Court cannot ignore the fact that the purpose of setting up a large-scale and productive drug-manufacturing workshop cannot simply be for manufacturing a small quantity of drugs just once. Over a long period of operation, the quantity of drugs that these drug-manufacturing workshops can produce must be extremely large and certainly would far exceed the quantity of drugs seized on the spot at the workshops. The sentence must therefore reflect the seriousness of these offences. Even if the quantity of drugs seized on the spot is not significant, the sentences for ‘drug-manufacturing’ offences must be substantially higher than that for ‘trafficking’ the same amount of drugs.
36. When it comes to a large-scale, productive and long-running drug-manufacturing workshop, where the defendant plays an active and important role, where an exceptionally large amount of drugs is seized, the appropriate starting point should even exceed 30 years’ imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the offence.”
In the present case, the quantity of drugs seized in particular the 973.61 grammes of cocaine hydrochloride which was to be converted into crack cocaine, the sodium bicarbonate, the equipment and paraphernalia show that the room was a medium size drug-manufacturing workshop. It was a productive workshop as 58.33 grammes of crack cocaine was seized. The room had been used by the defendant since 4 June 2024. In my judgment, it was a long-running drug-manufacturing workshop. As the Court of Appeal reckoned in Cheng Chi Wai, the process of manufacturing crack cocaine is simple and fast, offenders are able to produce crack cocaine multiple times within the space of 2½ half hours. The defendant was the only person who manned the drug-manufacturing workshop in the present case.
On the facts before me, I take 23 years’ imprisonment as the notional sentence after trial for Charge 2.
The defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for his guilty plea. Apart from his guilty plea, there is no other valid mitigating factor.
On Charge 2, I sentence the defendant to 15 years and 4 months’ imprisonment (184 months).
Totality
In considering the totality of sentence I bear in mind the offence period of Charge 2 covers the period the room was used by the defendant for drug-manufacturing, that is between 4 and 14 June 2024, whereas the offence date of Charge 1 was the date of the raid, that is 14 June 2024. The drug-manufacturing in the room was a continuous act spanning over a period of time. When I considered the sentence for Charge 1, I only sentenced the defendant for his trafficking acts, that is using the room for storage of the cocaine for the purpose of unlawful trafficking after the conversion process but also the defendant would repackage the cocaine for delivery to other people and consumption by people invited by the defendant in the room. In my judgment, the two charges call for partly consecutive sentences.
In my judgment, a total sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment should adequately reflect the overall culpability of the defendant. To achieve that end, I order 2 years and 8 months of the sentence of Charge 1 to run consecutively to the sentence of Charge 2.
The total sentence is 18 years’ imprisonment.