HKSAR v. Tang Pok Ping and Another

HCCC 41/2025

[2025] HKCFI 2873

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 41 OF 2025

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.D1 and D2 are jointly charged with a single count of “Conspiracy to manufacture a dangerous drug, contrary to sections 6(1)(a) and (2) and 39 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134 and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.

2.They both pleaded guilty to the charge at the Committal Proceedings on 6 February 2025 and were thus committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

3.This morning, they both appeared before me, having confirmed their pleas and the admission of the Summary of Facts.

FACTS

4.According to the Summary of Facts which were admitted by the two defendants, on 23.12.2021 at around 1805 hours, police officers including DPC 21614 (“PW1”) and DPC 19192 (“PW2”) entered Room J, 15/F, Fu Cheung Centre, 5-7 Wong Chuk Yeung Street, Shatin (Room) in a narcotics operation under warrant.  Upon police entry, D1 and D2 were present in the Room and large amounts of chemical substances and laboratory equipment were found inside the Room.

5.The Room was around 2,500 sq. ft in size and can be divided into 5 zones:

Zone A	Storage space at the right side of entrance
Zone B	Long storage space at the left side of entrance
Zone C	A room with a bunk bed at the end of Zone B
Zone D	A room with 2 ventilation machines next to Zone C
Zone E	A large room with a toilet and air conditioning control room

6.Upon arrest by PW1 and under caution, D1 admitted “Both of us are manufacturing drugs for money for another person, Ah Sir give us a chance.  I owe $200,000 odd dollars”.  As for D2, upon arrest by PW2 and under caution, he admitted that “Ah Sir I am only learning to manufacture drugs these couple of months, there is a little bit of product on the table”.  

7.In his subsequent video recorded interview, D1 admitted under caution:

(a) D1 owed financial company $200,000 odd dollars so he had no choice but to manufacture dangerous drugs;

(b) D1 was at the Room to manufacture dangerous drugs at the time;

(c) The rental of the Room was $25,000 per month and it was paid by a Mr. Chan (CHAN);

(d) D1 met CHAN while gaming in February 2021 and D1 has only seen him once at the Western Tsuen Wan station in March 2021;

(e) CHAN is around 1.75m tall and spoke fluent Cantonese. CHAN introduced D1 to manufacturing of dangerous drugs (MDD);

(f) D1 did not know how to manufacture DD but he learnt it from CHAN via Telegram;

(g) CHAN would periodically ask D1 to bring supplies to the Room. It was in September 2021 that D1 received a list of goods and there were chemicals for the manufacture of ICE;

(h) D1 began working on 29 August 2021 and in the middle of September 2021, CHAN sent him messages to teach him how to manufacture ICE;

(i) D1 followed CHAN’s instructions to manufacture ICE;

(j) D1 has records in the app Telegram of ICE manufacture;

(k) CHAN introduced another person named Ah Han to live in the Room. Only D1 and Ah Han knew the passcode to the Room;

(l) D1 confirmed his messages in Telegram of the ICE manufacture process;

(m) D1 admitted and explained how to mix water and HCL in ratio and to add heat in the process for ICE manufacture;

(n) D1 further explained the second step of ICE manufacture;

(o) D1 said Ah Han and himself were both students of DD manufacture;

(p) CHAN said D1 would be remunerated with $60,000 every 3 weeks;

(q) D1 confirmed various chemicals shown in the photographs taken at the Room, including BMK, alcohol etc.

(r) D1 had not received any remuneration since the work began in August 2021;

(s) The manufacturing of ICE was never successful; and

(t) D1 consented to the inspection of his mobile phone by the Police without a search warrant.

8.In his subsequent video recorded interview, D2 admitted under caution:

(a) D2 admitted to manufacture of dangerous drugs, and the DD was on the table;

(b) D2 had no employment and was introduced to the job. Upon attending the Room, D2 knew that it was DD manufacture;

(c) D2 was introduced by CHAN but D2 has never seen him as he contacted him using a 133 phone;

(d) In July or August, CHAN contacted D2 and ask D2 to help make quick money and D2 agreed;

(e) D2 then went to the Room and began to manufacture drugs;

(f) CHAN gave D2’s phone number to D1. They met up in Mongkok and then went to Room on 29.8.2021;

(g) D2 registered on Telegram using “52775268” and D1 used a Hong Kong number to register;

(h) When D2 went to the Room, he saw lots of paper boxes, metal containers and supplies present. There was also a bedroom;

(i) Initially, D2 only moved the goods but recently he began to manufacture drugs too. CHAN invited D2 into a Telegram group wherein people taught him how to manufacture drugs. D1 and D2 began to manufacture dangerous drugs between 12 and 13 September 2021;

(j) D2 worked 5 days a week and for working 30 days, there would be around $80,000 to $100,000 remuneration;

(k) There were expenses payment of around $2,500 per week that would be deposited into D2’s account in Bank of China or Hang Seng bank;

(l) Only D1 had the key to the Room and D1 said the rental was paid by the boss;

(m) D2 said he communicated with the dangerous drug syndicate via Telegram only. The group taught him how to manufacture drugs and would also chase for progress. D1 was the only person he knew from this Telegram group of 7;

(n) D2 only met D1 around 4 months ago and they usually worked together. D1 was responsible for the manufacture of dangerous drugs and D2 would assist him;

(o) The supplies in the Room was enough for 200-300 catty of ICE which is worth around $20-30 million;

(p) D1 and D2 had tried to make ICE but the boss said the product was not good enough as ICE was supposed to be a long crystalline material. The ICE was washed away;

(q) The working hours are 9 am to 11 pm, and D1 would look at his phone to follow instructions for drug manufacture;

(r) D2 explained the dangerous drug manufacture process including the addition of water and BMK to cook it into an oil form; after more processing they had to adjust the pH and check for foreign bodies. If there were none then NaOH can be added for reaction. Upon repetition, a crystalline product would form and these are the drugs. The process would take around 3-4 days;

(s) The supplies were sourced from Taobao and D1 was the named recipient;

(t) The drug process would generate odors and the ventilation units were installed in September or October to reduce the smell;

(u) D2's purpose of manufacturing dangerous drugs was to get quick money;

(v) There were 2 or 3 times wherein crystalline drug products were made;

(w) D2 confirmed his mobile phones and clothing worn at the material time; and

(x) D2 confirmed the photographs taken at the Room including the chemical supplies, the layout of the Room and equipment for drug manufacture (such as cooker, mixer, desiccants, gas mask, steamer etc.).

9.Government Chemist KWOK Nai-chiu attended the Room on 23.12.2021.  He is of the opinion that: -

(a) Chemist KWOK referred to the supplies and equipment found at the Room located at the different Zones. He said that the materials seized from the Room contained controlled chemical substances methyl alpha-phenylacetoacetate which would be used to manufacture phenylacetone which in turn is a common starting material for ICE manufacturing. Chemist KWOK also referred to the sodium borohydride, methylamine hydrochloride, hydrochloric acid as well as tartaric acid and explained their usage in the process and purification of methamphetamine (ICE). There were also traces of methamphetamine which were detected on the separation funnel and he opined that this suggested a chemical extraction process involving methamphetamine could have been performed. Chemist KWOK concluded that based on the scene inspection, laboratory finding and the various chemicals and laboratory equipment found at the Room, a manufacturing process of methamphetamine hydrochloride could have taken place at the Room; and

(b) Based upon the Police finding of 144kg of methyl alpha-phenylacetoacetate found at the Room, the maximum yield of methamphetamine hydrochloride would be 138kg.

10.Government chemist certificate dated 29.4.2022 confirmed amongst others, the following seized from the Room:

(a) 19.5g of a solid containing sodium hydroxide;

(b) 1 separating funnel (not examined) and 6 plastic bottles containing 515 ml of a liquid containing traces of methamphetamine.

(c) 8.97g of a solid containing methyl alpha-phenylacetoacetate which is controlled under the Control of Chemicals Ordinance Cap. 145;

(d) 1 plastic bottle containing 499g of a solid containing tartaric acid;

(e) 1 plastic bottle containing 86.1g of a solid containing tartaric acid;

(f) 3 glass bottles containing a total of 625mL of a liquid containing hydrochloric acid and

(g) 1 glass bottle containing 430 mL of a liquid containing hydrochloric acid.

FORENSIC ANALYSIS

11.Fingerprint analysis of prints lifted from the Room revealed that the left thumb print of D2 was found on the glass funnel on the table near the toilet.

12.The DNA of D2 was found to be on a mask, 3M Mask and pair of plastic gloves from Zone E of the Room.

13.In the CCTV footage on 22.12.2021 and 23.12.2021, D1 was leaving the Room at 1632 hrs on 22.12.2021 and returning at 1702 hrs on the same day.

14.Photographs were taken from the Room and various exhibits of the case as follows:

(a) From the Telegram accounts of D1, the various steps in the DD manufacture process were set out in a written recipe.

(b) In the Room photographs, metallic vats, large bags of sodium hydroxide, buckets of pure hydrochloric acid, equipment with ventilation tubings, activated carbon packs, electronic equipment and glass funnel were present in the Room;

(c) There was a total of 694 photographs in D1’s mobile phone including the glass ware set up with various liquids and fluids in the containers; and

(d) From the mobile phone of D2, there were various photos showing yellow and transparent liquids in containers on electronic equipment.

OTHER INVESTIGATIONS

15.The landlord of the Room confirmed that D1 was the tenant, and the monthly rent was $25,000.  The tenancy period was from 1.4.2021 until 31.3.2023 with a rent-free period from 13.3.2021 to 31.3.2021.

16.Electricity bills between August and October 2021 were also seized from the Room and D1 was the registered customer for the Room.

17.Between an unknown day in March 2021 and 23 December 2021, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, D1 and D2 conspired with other persons unknown to manufacture a dangerous drug, namely, methamphetamine hydrochloride.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATIONS

D1

18.D1 is 27 years old and single.  He was 24 years old and has a clear record at the time of the offence.  He received education up to Form 2.  Mr. William Hui, counsel for D1, told me that D1 was a salesperson at a lighting shop, but he became jobless during the pandemic.  He then started to borrow money from various loan companies for living and had accumulated a debt of about HK$200,000.

19.Mr. Hui told me that D1 was raised by his father in a single parent family.  His father is aged 61 and is in poor health.  A mitigation letter written by D1’s father was submitted for my consideration in which he blamed himself for poor family upbringing leading to the son’s mixing with dubious peers which resulted in the commission of the offence.

20.A mitigation letter from D1’s ex-employer was also submitted in which D1 was described as an honest person which performed well in his duties.  

21.D1 has also written a mitigation letter himself in which he had a deep reflection and said he was remorseful and promised to be a good man after release.

22.Mr. Hui reiterated what D1 had already confessed to the police about his role in the manufacturing of the ICE and stressed that up to the date of arrest, no dangerous drugs were ever successfully made.

23.Mr. Hui also stressed that the Room had been operating for about 5 months, and no dangerous drugs were seized.  Based on the quantity of raw materials and paraphernalia found in the Room, Mr. Hui submitted that the court may consider that the manufacturing operation be regarded as small to medium.  While the defence acknowledged that the maximum yield of methamphetamine hydrochloride could be as high as 138 kg according to the Government Chemist, the proper starting point should still be in the range of 20-25 years given D1’s claim that no dangerous drugs were ever successfully made and there is no evidence to the contrary from the prosecution.

D2

24.D2 is now 24 years old.  He was 21 at the time of the offence and is still single.  

25.According to Ms. Anita Ma, counsel for D2, he came from a typical working-class company with three elder sisters.  D2’s father passed away in 2015 and his mother, who almost single handedly raised the family, was working as a cleaning worker and now as a part-time security guard.  

26.D2 dropped out of school after completing form 3 at the age of 16.  After leaving school, he had worked as kitchen apprentice and sales, earning a meagre income.  D2 was unemployed at the time of the offence and he spent time together with dubious peers and eventually he was tempted into manufacturing drugs in order to earn quick money.

27.D2 had a clear criminal record.

28.Ms. Ma informs me that D2’s mother had already suffered from depression and anxiety after the passing of D2’s father.  The subsequent arrest of D2 in December 2021 had aggravated her mental condition and she now requires the intake of medication and follow-up treatment.

29.In mitigation, Ms. Ma emphasized that D2 is extremely remorseful and he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount.  She said that the scale of operation was relatively small.  Also the period of the manufacturing was not of a long duration, and in D2’s case, only a little more than 3 months.

30.As to the role played by D2, Ms. Ma said his client had never been the mastermind.  He was merely recruited by CHAN to join the syndicate.  She said that D2 played a subsidiary or secondary role as compared to D1 in the manufacturing process.  D2 was neither the tenant of the Room nor the registered customer of the electricity company.  D2 only assisted D1 in the manufacturing process and the whole process was not sophisticated in nature and the syndicate taught him how to manufacture drugs via Telegram and the supplies were sourced from Taobao.  Ms. Ma submitted that entire manufacturing process undertaken by D2 had been performed in the most amateurish way and the manufacturing process was relatively simple.  Ms. Ma said that the manufacturing process was still at its infancy, and hardly capable of converting the chemical substances found at the Room into ICE at all.

31.Ms. Ma also reiterated that no dangerous drugs had ever been seized by the police from the Room so she submitted that the entire manufacturing process had been wholly unproductive and utterly unsuccessful.  Taken into account the facts of the present case and the overall circumstances, Ms. Ma submits that the starting point for D2 should fall within the “upper end” of the 20 years’ up category of HKSAR v. Cheng Chi Wai [2021] HKCA 181.

32.D2 has submitted a total of four letters of mitigation, one from himself, and others from his mother, elder sister and the Pastor of Christian Alliance.  According to D2’s letter, he was deeply remorseful and he hoped to further his studies and to learn some useful skills while serving his time.  He had turned to the faith of Christianity during his time in prison and he asks the court to impose a lighter sentence.

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS

33.In sentencing, I have taken into account the facts of the case, the nature and the quantity of the drugs involved, the relevant sentencing guideline and authorities and the mitigations put forward by the defendants.

34.The offence of “Manufacturing a Dangerous Drug” is undoubtedly even more serious than “Trafficking in dangerous drugs”.  In The Queen v Cheung Wai Kwong & Another [1997] HKLRD 344, the Court of Appeal already held that:-

“A person involved in the manufacturing process is clearly nearer to the source of evil than a trafficker. He deserved a heavier sentence. (See R v Wong Chun Ping & Others [1984] HKLR 247)”

35.In deciding the proper sentence for the offence of manufacturing dangerous drugs, the Court of Appeal made it clear that the quantity of drugs was but one factor to be taken into consideration.  Other factors included the scale of the operation, the capacity of the equipment, whether the manufacturing station had been producing or was likely to produce substantial quantities of dangerous drugs and the role played by the accused.

36.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.

37.In HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2021] HKCA 181, the Court of Appeal agreed that the starting point for “drug-manufacturing” offences should not necessarily be linked to the starting point for trafficking offences with the same quantity of “drugs” and there should be no fixed proportion between the two.  However, it was also held that the quantity of drugs seized is obviously relevant in assessing the seriousness of the offence as it will be indicative of the size and productivity of the manufacturing operation.  

38.The Court of Appeal opined that if there is information to show that that the manufacturing act is a 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.

39.If the manufacturing act is a continuous act spanning a period of time, and the manufacturing workshop is of considerable scale and productivity involving a large amount of chemicals used for manufacturing as well as a not insignificant quantity of high-standard manufacturing paraphernalia, the appropriate sentence should not be lower than 20 year’s imprisonment even if the quantity of drugs seized on the spot was not substantial.

40.When it comes to a large scale, productive and long-running drug-manufacturing workshop, where the defendant plays an active and important role, and 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.

41.The present case reveals a drug-manufacturing workshop operated in the Room rented by D1 and it has been in operation for almost 5 months.  The enterprise was clearly not one-off and according to defendants’ admissions, the two defendants had been trying to make ICE in the Room and there were 2 or 3 times wherein crystalline drug products were made albeit not very successful.  Based upon the finding of the raw materials found in the Room, the maximum yield of methamphetamine hydrochloride would be 138 kg and there is every reason to believe that the manufacturing is continuing and may even become successful one day if not intercepted by the police.

42.If one takes into account the potential quantity of ICE involved in this case which was the potential 138 kg, the starting point is well over 30 years.  Now considering the capacity of the equipment, the fact that the manufacturing workshop had already been in operation once the Room was occupied, despite the fact that no dangerous drugs were found in the Room and the claims by both defendants that they were still unsuccessful in producing ICE by the time of the police raid and no ICE was yet distributed into the market to yield any profits,  I consider it was still of significant scale and very active and the starting point of the sentence should be well over 20 years.  

43.In light of the role played by D1 in the whole manufacturing operation, I consider a starting point of 23 years and 6 months of imprisonment appropriate in his case.

44.There is no further aggravating factor in D1’s case. Apart from the customary one-third discount on account of his timely plea, there is no other valid mitigating factors.  The court would never accept economic reason for committing crimes and family circumstances virtually play no part in mitigation especially in serious offence such as the present.  D1’s sentence is therefore reduced from 23 years and 6 months to 15 years and 8 months of imprisonment. 

45.I take into account that D2 is not a mastermind in the syndicate, unlike D1, he is not a major player.  His task was only limited to assisting D1 in the manufacturing.  Based on the above, I consider a lesser starting point of 22 years and 6 months of imprisonment is more appropriate in D2’s case.  After giving him the one-third discount, the sentence he should receive is 15 years of imprisonment.  There is no further aggravating or mitigating factors identified.  

ORDER

46.D1: 15 years and 8 months of imprisonment

47.D2: 15 years of imprisonment.

Ms. Winnie Mok, SPP of Department of Justice, for the HKSAR

Mr. Hui Ki-fung William, instructed by Vitus Lawyers, assigned by DLA, for D1

Ms. Anita Ma, instructed by Patrick Chu, Conti Wong Lawyers LLP, assigned by DLA, for D2