A HCCC 366/2024 A
[2025] HKCFI 1886
B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 366 OF 2024
D ----------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F F
Lee Hung-kin (A1)
Fung Ka-ming (A2)
G G
-----------------
H Before: Hon Wilson Chan J H
Date: 27 March 2025 at 10.14 am
I
Present: Mr Raymond H M Chan, SPP(Ag) of the Department of I
Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Keung Ho Karl, instructed by Cheung & Liu, assigned
J by DLA, for the 1st accused J
Mr Tze Ying-kuen James, instructed by Ernest Tang,
Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the 2nd accused
K K
Offence: (1) Conspiracy to manufacture dangerous drugs (串謀製造
危險藥物)
L (2) Conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs (串謀販運危 L
險藥物)
M M
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
N of the Sentence in the above Case N
---------------------------------
O COURT: The 1st and 2nd defendants each pleaded guilty to one O
charge of “Conspiracy to manufacture dangerous drugs” and
P one charge of “Conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs”, P
and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal
proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 31 October 2024.
Q The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance Q
for sentence. Before this court, both the 1st defendant and
the 2nd defendant have confirmed their plea and their
R agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel. R
S The particulars of the charges respectively stated that S
between 7 July 2020 and 25 September 2020, in Hong Kong, the
defendants conspired together and with another person known
T as “Ah Wai”, to unlawfully manufacture (ie under Charge 1) T
and to unlawfully traffic in (ie under Charge 2) dangerous
drugs, namely ketamine, flurodeschloroketamine (“FDCK”) and
U U
cocaine.
CRT13/27.3.2025/KM 1 HCCC 366/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
As the two charges refer to the same time period, the same
personnel involved and the same dangerous drugs involved, it
B is clear that the charges only differ in that Charge 1 B
targets the acts done in the manufacturing process, whereas
Charge 2 targets the other acts done in the dealing in and
C C
dealing with the dangerous drugs, such as the weighing,
packing and delivery of the drugs.
D D
The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendants provide,
inter alia, as follows:
E E
Interception of D1 at Flat 1
F F
On 24 September 2020, at around 4.53 am, police laid ambush
outside Flat 714, 7th floor, Block B, Hi-tech Industrial
G Centre, 491-501 Castle Peak Road, Tsuen Wan, New Territories G
(“Flat 1”). The police saw the 1st defendant leaving the
flat and intercepted him at the lift lobby on the ground
H floor. The 1st defendant tried to flee but was subdued. H
The police seized two bundles of keys and six mobile phones
I
on the 1st defendant. I
The police then brought the 1st defendant to Flat 1. Police
J managed to open the gate’s lock with one of the 1st J
defendant’s keys. The 1st defendant also provided the
password of the digital lock that secured the flat’s wooden
K door, enabling the police to enter it for search. K
L Search of Flat 1 L
Flat 1 was an industrial unit, with a room and a washroom.
M It was furnished with some shelves and tables placed with M
various dangerous drugs manufacturing apparatus and
chemicals. When the police entered, there were many bowls
N of liquid being laid on the floor (later examine to be a N
mixture ketamine, FDCK and methanol).
O O
Government Chemist Dr Ho attended the scene for inspection,
and directed police on seizures there for later examination.
P Dr Ho opined that ketamine and FDCK purification process was P
taking place at Flat 1. The process involved dissolving
impure ketamine and FDCK in an organic solvent. Impurities
Q Q
that cannot be dissolved in the solvent can then be
separated from the solution. The solid ketamine and FDCK
R with higher purity can then be obtained by evaporating the R
solvent residue by heating. The relevant seizures at Flat 1
are summarised below:
S S
(1) 18 glass pots and bowls containing solids that
were immersed in a liquid. The liquid contained
T T
methanol, ketamine and FDCK. The solids contained
ketamine and FDCK.
U U
CRT13/27.3.2025/KM 2 HCCC 366/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A (2) Two measuring cups containing liquid that A
contained lower purity ketamine and FDCK.
B (3) Four metal containers that contained methanol B
residue.
C C
(4) Three induction heaters with traces of ketamine
and FDCK.
D D
(5) Paraphernalia that contained solids containing
either small amount of ketamine and FDCK, or traces of
E them: beaker, metal pots and ladles, thermometers, E
plastic containers, sieves, funnel, knife, measuring
cups, spatula and metal cans.
F F
(6) A notebook that listed chemicals and paraphernalia
G related to the process. G
(7) In summary, the total quantifiable dangerous drugs
H seized at Flat 1 are 7,836.15 grammes of solid H
containing 1,337.6 grammes of FDCK and 5,256.33
I
grammes of ketamine. I
Discovery of Flat 2 and D2’s Involvement
J J
On the same day of the police raid at Flat 1, the police
contacted the flat’s landlord and discovered that the 2nd
K defendant was the named tenant of the flat. The period of K
lease began from 15 September 2020 (9 days before the police
L raid) to run for two years. The landlord recalled that L
after they advertised the flat for lease, another unknown
male first came to visit the flat and agreed to rent it.
M Few days later, however, it was the 2nd defendant who came M
to sign on the tenancy agreement instead. The 2nd defendant
provided his HKID card and work proof as requested by the
N estate agent. The work proof was the 2nd defendant’s N
business card of a decoration company, sent in the form of a
O photograph to the landlord’s mobile phone (via Whatsapp and O
by the 2nd defendant’s phone number). The business card set
out an address at Flat 704A, Well Fung Industrial Centre, 68
P Ta Chuen Ping Street, Kwai Chung, New Territories (“Flat P
2”).
Q Q
Search of Flat 2
R On that information, on the next day, on 25 September 2020, R
the police obtained a warrant and searched Flat 2. No one
was inside the flat when the police entered. Upon search,
S police seized many paraphernalia, chemicals and dangerous S
drugs. Government Chemist Dr Tam attended Flat 2 for
inspection and directed on seizures for later examination.
T T
The relevant ketamine and FDCK seizures are as follows:
U U
CRT13/27.3.2025/KM 3 HCCC 366/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A FDCK and ketamine A
(1) A plastic bucket and a beaker containing liquid
B that contained solid. The liquid contained FDCK and B
ketamine upon drying. The solid contained FDCK and
ketamine.
C C
(2) Various paraphernalia that contained different
D amounts of FDCK and ketamine (in solid or upon drying D
from liquid), or traces of them: plastic bottles,
cups, plates, plastic bags, pot and lid, electronic
E scale, bucket, etc. E
(3) Two plastic bottles containing ethanol.
F F
(4) The total FDCK and ketamine involved are:
G G
a. 1,368.69 grammes of a solid containing 200.68
grammes of FDCK and 813.19 grammes of ketamine.
H H
b. 123.88 grammes of a solid containing 4.64
I
grammes of ketamine. I
Cocaine
J J
(5) A total of 115.56 grammes of a solid containing a
total of 5.98 grammes of cocaine or its traces were
K found in a blender, scattered in cups, plastic bucket, K
jerrycans (which also contained petrol and
L dichloromethane) and paraphernalia, such as sieve, L
skimmer, knives, spatulas, plastic basin and tray.
M (6) 670.9 grammes of potassium permanganate and 1,305 M
millilitres of acetone, both being controlled
chemicals.
N N
(7) Boxes of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda).
O O
(8) A bottle containing hydrochloric acid.
P ‘Ice’ bottle P
(9) A glass tube shaped as a bulb containing 0.4
Q Q
gramme of a solid containing methamphetamine, commonly
known as ‘Ice’, which should be noted, however, that
R ‘Ice’ is not one of the drugs alleged to have been R
manufactured or trafficked in the two charges laid
against the defendants.
S S
Dr Tam opined that the extraction of cocaine from “black
cocaine” could have taken place in Flat 2. The process
T T
involved purifying the cocaine from its mixture form with
other substances. The form is known as “black cocaine”,
U which was used to avoid detection by masking its cocaine U
CRT13/27.3.2025/KM 4 HCCC 366/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A characteristics. Dr Tam opined that the black solid seized A
in the blender (and spatula) at Flat 2 was the black
cocaine, which was chemically altered with zinc-containing
B substance. The extraction process would involve dissolving B
it into dichloromethane, and then to add potassium
permanganate and petrol afterwards. After stirring, there
C C
would be two immiscible layers. Baking powder (sodium
bicarbonate) would be further added to the collected lower
D layer to precipitate out the cocaine base. These chemicals D
were all found in Flat 2.
E There was also a mattress laid on the floor with the bed E
already made in Flat 2. The police also seized a stack of
the 2nd defendant’s business card in the flat, same as the
F F
one being sent to Flat 1’s landlord.
G Further enquiry G
The police enquired with the landlord of Flat 2. Flat 2 was
H leased to the 2nd defendant from 7 July 2020 (ie over two H
months before the police raid) for two years. The 2nd
I
defendant presented his HKID card and contacted the landlord I
by his mobile phone.
J D2’s arrest J
Police located and arrested the 2nd defendant about half a
K year later on 20 April 2021. The police seized his two K
mobile phones on him.
L L
Cautioned Statements
M D2 M
Upon arrest and under caution for manufacturing dangerous
N drugs, in three video-recorded interviews, the 2nd defendant N
made detailed admissions to the conspiracy. He admitted
O that he was recruited by the 1st defendant (along with a O
person known as “Ah Wai”) to “cook” dangerous drugs.
P Background of the Conspiracy P
(1) The 1st defendant and Ah Wai asked the 2nd
Q Q
defendant to rent Flat 2 (with funds provided by the
1st defendant) in July 2020. The 2nd defendant would
R stay over in the flat every night. He soon realised R
that the 1st defendant and Ah Wai used the flat to
manufacture dangerous drugs.
S S
(2) The 2nd defendant agreed to do so because he owed
the 1st defendant money. However, by the end of August
T T
2020 (about two months into the scheme) the 2nd
defendant already settled the debt. The 1st defendant
U U
CRT13/27.3.2025/KM 5 HCCC 366/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A then promised the 2nd defendant HK$200,000 after they A
are “done with” all ketamine.
B (3) The 2nd defendant admitted having used two mobile B
phone numbers to message with the 1st defendant. One
of the numbers was given to him by the 1st defendant
C C
and Ah Wai on a SIM card. He said he had ceased to use
that by April 2020 and returned the card to them.
D D
D2’s role (re Flat 2)
E (4) The 1st defendant and Ah Wai taught the 2nd E
defendant how to mix the chemicals in Flat 2 to
produce ketamine: by mixing methanol with other
F F
chemicals, and to remove the solid/product from the
buckets with spoons as instructed.
G G
(5) On the 1st defendant’s instructions, the 2nd
defendant bought some of the paraphernalia (induction
H cooker, fan, methanol, pots and buckets, etc) in the H
flat. He identified the photographs of some of the
I
seizures when police showed them to him. Other items I
were brought to the flat by the 1st defendant and Ah
Wai.
J J
(6) The 2nd defendant would weight and pack the
produced ketamine for them.
K K
(7) The 2nd defendant made the business cards to rent
L places by the name of a decoration company that he L
made up.
M (8) The 1st and 2nd defendants would use the ‘Ice’ M
bottle seized in the flat to consume ‘Ice’.
N (9) There were three boxes of baking soda that would N
be used by the 1st defendant and Ah Wai to manufacture
O cracked cocaine at the flat. The 1st defendant and Ah O
Wai had taught the method to the 2nd defendant.
P D2’s role (re Flat 1) P
(10) D2 rented Flat 1 on the 1st defendant’s
Q Q
instruction.
R (11) D2 attended Flat 1 every other day, to obtain R
utility fees from the 1st defendant and Ah Wai.
S (12) The 2nd defendant admitted buying some of the S
chemicals and paraphernalia in Flat 1 when photographs
were shown to him: pots, straws, trays, ethanol.
T T
(13) There was a notebook written with dangerous drugs
U manufacturing guidelines seized in Flat 1. The 2nd U
CRT13/27.3.2025/KM 6 HCCC 366/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A defendant admitted he wrote the first six pages on the A
1st defendant’s instructions.
B (14) The 2nd defendant was not sure if he had used the B
‘Ice’ bottles seized in Flat 1 to smoke ‘Ice’ when the
bottles were shown to him, though he had smoked ‘Ice’
C C
in Flat 1.
D D1 D
On the other hand, the 1st defendant admitted to his
E manufacturing dangerous drug at Flat 1. He said one “Ah E
Keung” instructed him to produce “perfume” at Flat 1 (which
he believed to be an anaesthetics drug). He was told to
F F
pour various chemicals in the pots and to heat them, and he
would earn about HK$10,000 for each kilogramme of solid
G produced. G
WhatsApp communications between the 1st and 2nd defendant
H H
The police seized the 1st defendant’s mobile phone. In its
I
WhatsApp, they found that the 1st defendant communicated I
with two mobile telephone numbers used by the 2nd defendant.
While the messages did not directly mentioned drugs, they
J mentioned chemical names. The messages showed that the 1st J
defendant gave instruction to the 2nd defendant on dangerous
drug manufacturing process and drug deliveries. Their
K scheme began as early as 23 August 2020. The 2nd defendant K
would report to the 1st defendant of his whereabouts, the
L expenses incurred and would send the 1st defendant L
photographs of the process. On one instance, the 1st
defendant accounted to the 2nd defendant his remuneration to
M date. Some highlights of the messages and their dates below M
are set out as example:
N (1) 24 August 2020: the 2nd defendant sent photographs N
of bags of suspected dangerous drugs being weighed on
O a scale. The 1st defendant asked the 2nd defendant to O
close the gate (of a premises) when the 2nd defendant
leaves.
P P
(2) 25 August 2020: the 1st defendant asked the 2nd
defendant to give a man called “Big eye” “2 pieces”
Q Q
and to give “4 pieces” to a man called “Fatty”. The
2nd defendant then said he will go to soak up the
R stuff and to blow dry them. R
(3) 3 September 2020: on the 1st defendant’s
S instructions, the 2nd defendant sent photographs of S
several bowls of suspected ketamine and FDCK liquid
(with white residue) similar to those later seized in
T T
Flat 1. The 2nd defendant again sent photographs of
similar bowls of ketamine product again on 10
U September 2020. U
CRT13/27.3.2025/KM 7 HCCC 366/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
(4) 10 September 2020: the 1st defendant sent photos
of the vacant Flat 1 to the 2nd defendant.
B B
(5) 11 September 2020: the 2nd defendant sent
photographs of baskets of suspected dangerous drug
C C
solid and the 1st defendant asked the 2nd defendant
whether he had soaked them in chemical and asked D2 to
D package them for delivery. D
(6) 14-15 September 2020: the 1st defendant said he
E would deposit HK$10,000 to the 2nd defendant and that E
the balance would be HK$170,000.
F F
In addition, the police also seized some photographs of
suspected dangerous drug taken at Flat 1 in the 1st
G defendant’s mobile phone photo album. G
Street Values
H H
According to the police narcotic expert, the estimated
I
street values of the seized drugs at both Flat 1 and Flat 2 I
are as follows:
J Flat 1 J
(1) Ketamine: HK$3,847,550 (at HK$491 per gramme),
K discounting all liquid. K
L Flat 2 L
(2) Ketamine: HK$732,851 (again, at HK$491 per
M gramme), discounting all liquid. M
(3) Cocaine: HK$203,154 (at HK$1,758 per gramme).
N N
The 1st and 2nd defendants both admit that between 7 July
O 2020 and 25 September 2020, both dates inclusive, they O
conspired together to manufacture and to traffic in
ketamine, FDCK and cocaine at Flat 1 and Flat 2.
P P
Regarding the personal background of the defendants, the 1st
defendant is 56 years of age. He was born in Mainland
Q Q
China. He has been educated up to Primary 4 level in Hong
Kong. He is married and had been living with his 46 year-
R old wife and 11 year-old son. His parents have passed away. R
At the time of his arrest, he was working as a
transportation worker, earning about HK$15,000 a month.
S S
The 1st defendant has a total of 10 previous convictions,
two of which are drug related. He has one previous
T T
conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs, for which he
was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment on 7 August 2015.
U U
CRT13/27.3.2025/KM 8 HCCC 366/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A The 2nd defendant is 39 years of age. He had been educated A
up to secondary Form 5 level. He is single and was living
with his parents who are both over 70 years old. Before the
B offences in question, the 2nd defendant worked as a casual B
construction/decoration worker. He became unemployed and
was in financial difficulty. He foolishly committed the
C C
present offences in order to make money.
D The 2nd defendant has four previous convictions for drug D
related offences, two of which are for the offence of
trafficking in dangerous drugs. For these two trafficking
E offences, he was sentenced respectively to 2 years’ E
imprisonment on 4 January 2011 and 8 years and 8 months’
sentence on 22 January 2016.
F F
The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking in a
G dangerous drug is laid down in HKSAR v Henry Jane Yusuph G
[2021] 1 HKLRD 290 which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee
Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.
H H
The first step is to identify the relevant sentencing band
I
(or bracket) applicable to the quantity of drug concerned. I
The second step is an assessment of the role and culpability
of the defendant based on the evidence before the court.
J The third step is to identify where in the relevant band of J
the guideline the defendant comes. It may be necessary to
go outside the band to reflect the particular circumstances
K of the offence and the role of the defendant. The fourth K
step is to consider the aggravating factors which bear on
L the “notional sentence after trial”. The fifth step is to L
have regard to any matters of mitigation, bearing in mind
that “personal circumstances will count for little, unless
M they are exceptional”. The sixth and final step is for the M
judge to stand back and look at the overall sentence passed
in order to ensure that it is a “fair, just and balanced
N sentence”. N
O I shall adopt a similar “six step” approach in arriving at O
the appropriate sentences for both charges in the present
case.
P P
Regarding step one, which involves the identification of the
appropriate initial sentencing range applicable to the
Q Q
quantity of drugs involved, the duration of the conspiracy,
and nature of the operation, including the number of people
R involved, before considering the role and culpability of the R
defendants under step two.
S The total quantifiable dangerous drugs seized at Flat 1 are S
6,593.93 grammes of ketamine/FDCK. The total quantifiable
dangerous drugs seized at Flat 2 are 1,018.51 grammes of
T T
ketamine/FDCK, and 5.98 grammes of cocaine.
U U
CRT13/27.3.2025/KM 9 HCCC 366/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A Therefore, the total quantity of ketamine/FDCK is 7,612.44 A
grammes. According to the sentencing guideline for
trafficking in ketamine set out in Secretary for Justice v
B Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, for over 1,000 grammes of B
ketamine, the sentence would be 14 years’ imprisonment
upwards.
C C
In HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin [2013] 1 HKLRD 627, the Court of
D Appeal was of the view that for 5.12 kilogrammes of D
ketamine, the starting point of 22 years was appropriate.
It is well recognised that the sentencing/starting point
E would not increase proportionally for large quantity of E
drugs and the graph would flatten as the quantity increases.
Accordingly, I hold that the starting point for trafficking
F F
in 7,612.44 grammes of ketamine/FDCK would be around 23
years’ imprisonment.
G G
As for the 5.98 grammes of cocaine, according to HKSAR v
Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234 at paragraph 62, the starting
H point would be in the range of 2 to 5 years, arithmetically, H
at around 3 years and 9 months. Under the conversion
I
approach, 5.98 grammes of cocaine would, therefore, be I
equivalent to around 10 grammes of ketamine/FDCK.
J In assessing the starting point, the addition of this small J
quantity of cocaine into the quantity of ketamine/FDCK would
not materially affect the starting point for trafficking
K (save for the enhancement for more than one drug involved, K
which will be dealt with under step four below).
L L
23 years is the starting point for trafficking in around 7.6
kilogrammes of ketamine/FDCK on a single occasion. It is
M important to remember that under Charge 2, what is charged M
is a conspiracy. In HKSAR v Leung King Hung [2024] HKCA
804, the Court of Appeal considered that in a conspiracy to
N traffic, the notional starting point would be based not only N
on the quantity of drug seized, but also on the duration of
O the conspiracy, the number of people involved and their O
role. Taking into account all the relevant considerations
in the present case, I hold that the notional starting point
P under step one for Charge 2 (trafficking) should be 24 P
years’ imprisonment.
Q Q
As to the starting point under step one for Charge 1
(manufacturing of dangerous drugs), I take into account the
R following: R
(1) It has long been held in this jurisdiction that
S the offence of manufacturing is to be regarded even S
more seriously than the offence of trafficking.
T T
(2) If the drug manufacturing act is a continuous act
spanning a period of time, and the drug manufacturing
U U
CRT13/27.3.2025/KM 10 HCCC 366/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A workshop is of considerable scale and productivity A
involving a large amount of chemicals used for drug
manufacturing as well as a not insignificant quantity
B of high standard drug manufacturing paraphernalia, the B
appropriate sentence should not be lower than 20
years’ imprisonment, even if the quantity of drugs
C C
seized on the spot was not substantial: see HKSAR v
Cheng Chi Wai [2022] 3 HKLRD 408, paragraph 34. In our
D case, the quantity of drugs seized was over 7.6 D
kilogrammes of ketamine.
E (3) When it comes to a large scale, productive and E
long-running drug manufacturing workshop, where the
defendant plays an active and important role, and
F F
where an exceptionally large amount of drug is seized,
the appropriate starting point should even exceed 30
G years’ imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the G
offence: see HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai, ibid, paragraph
36.
H H
In the present case, taking into account all the relevant
I
circumstances, I hold that the notional starting point I
under step one for Charge 1 (manufacturing of dangerous
drugs) should be 26 years’ imprisonment.
J J
Regarding step two, concerning the role and culpability of
the defendants, I shall first deal with the position of the
K 2nd defendant. I accept that based on the Summary of Facts, K
the 2nd defendant was a worker, but he was obviously more
L than just a courier or storekeeper, a preposition which is L
not disputed by the 2nd defendant’s counsel. The 2nd
defendant took up the lease of Flat 1 and Flat 2. He was
M intricately involved with the manufacturing process. He was M
responsible for weighting and packing the finished product.
He was even responsible for delivering at least some of the
N drugs to the buyers. N
O Regarding the 1st defendant, I consider that he was one step O
above the 2nd defendant in the hierarchy. He recruited the
2nd defendant. He funded the rental of Flat 1 and Flat 2.
P He promised the remuneration to be paid to the 2nd P
defendant. He taught the 2nd defendant how to manufacture
the finished product. The 1st defendant also gave
Q Q
instructions to the 2nd defendant regarding drug deliveries.
R Regarding step three, based on my findings made at step two, R
I would adopt the following “notional sentences after trial”
for the offences in question:
S S
(1) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 1
(manufacturing): 27 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
T T
(2) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 2
U (trafficking): 25 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. U
CRT13/27.3.2025/KM 11 HCCC 366/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
(3) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 1
(manufacturing): 27 years’ imprisonment.
B B
(4) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 2
(trafficking): 25 years’ imprisonment.
C C
Regarding step four, I am required to consider any
D aggravating factors, which would go to enhance the “notional D
sentences after trial” identified under step three. There
are two such aggravating features in the present case.
E E
The first aggravating feature concerns the multiplicity of
dangerous drugs being manufactured and trafficked in (ie
F F
ketamine and cocaine), thereby catering to a wider market of
consumers. I would enhance the sentence of imprisonment by
G 6 months for this factor. G
The second aggravating features concerns the defendants’
H previous convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs, H
which is also an accepted factor justifying an enhancement
I
of sentence under step four. For this factor, I would I
enhance the sentence of the defendants by further 6 months’
imprisonment.
J J
This would take the “notional sentences after trial” to the
following level:
K K
(1) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 1
L (manufacturing): 28 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. L
(2) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 2
M (trafficking): 26 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. M
(3) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 1
N (manufacturing): 28 years’ imprisonment. N
O (4) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 2 O
(trafficking): 26 years’ imprisonment.
P Regarding step five, I consider that the only factor which P
may reduce the defendants’ sentences are the timely guilty
pleas, for which I will give them a one-third discount.
Q Q
Accordingly, the defendants’ sentences are reduced to the
following:
R R
(1) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 1
(manufacturing): 19 years’ imprisonment.
S S
(2) Regarding the 1st defendant on Charge 2
(trafficking): 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
T T
(3) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 1
U (manufacturing): 18 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. U
CRT13/27.3.2025/KM 12 HCCC 366/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
(4) Regarding the 2nd defendant on Charge 2
(trafficking): 17 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
B B
In the case of the 2nd defendant, counsel submits that the 5
months’ sentence resulting from the 2nd defendant’s last
C C
conviction on 14 March 2022 should be considered in term of
totality, although counsel accepts that the possession of
D dangerous drugs offence was committed on a separate D
occasion, long after the present offences, thus in principle
liable to be punished by consecutive sentences. I agree
E with that submission, and I consider it just that the 2nd E
defendant’s sentence on Charge 1 (manufacturing) should be
reduced by 2 months, making it 18 years and 6 months’
F F
imprisonment.
G Finally, I consider the sentences indicated above, to be G
fair, just and balanced sentences, taking into account the
very serious nature of the present case.
H H
Accordingly, the 1st defendant is sentenced to 19 years’
I
imprisonment on Charge 1, 17 years and 8 months’ I
imprisonment on Charge 2, and I order that the sentences are
to run concurrently.
J J
In the case of the 2nd defendant, I sentence him to 18 years
and 6 months’ imprisonment on Charge 1, and 17 years and 4
K months’ imprisonment on Charge 2. Again, I order the K
sentences to run concurrently.
L L
So that the total sentence to be served by the 1st defendant
is 19 years. And the total sentence to be served by the 2nd
M defendant is 18 years and 6 months. M
N N
I/we certify that to the best of my/our ability
O and skill, the foregoing is a true transcript of O
the audio recording of the above proceedings
P P
Q Q
..........................................
R MAK HO YAN R
Date: 8 April 2025
S S
T T
U U
CRT13/27.3.2025/KM 13 HCCC 366/2024(1)/Sentence
V V