HKSAR v. Ng Ka Man and Others

HCCC 398/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2989

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 398 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charges

1.On 13 November 2025, each of the three defendants pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The 1^st defendant (“D1”)  pleaded guilty to the 1^st charge which involved 55 grammes of a solid containing 46.51 grammes of cocaine and 99.23 grammes of a solid containing 82.81 grammes of ketamine.  The 2^nd and 3^rd defendants (“D2” and “D3”)  pleaded guilty to the 2^nd charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs which involved 21.5 grammes of a solid containing 18.78 grammes of cocaine, 156.28 grammes of a solid containing 123.83 grammes of ketamine and 10.56 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 9.72 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.  On the same day, the three defendants admitted a Summary of Facts dated 25 September 2025 and they were committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing. 

2.On 11 March 2026, before this Court, D1 and D2 confirmed their guilty pleas and their admission of the Summary of Facts.  Having heard mitigation submissions made on their behalf, this Court sentenced D1 to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment on the 1^st charge and D2 to 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment on the 2^nd charge.  The sentencing hearing for D3 was adjourned to 15 June 2026.

3.Today, before this Court, D3 confirmed his guilty plea and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

4.The facts of the present case can be summarized as follows. 

5.On 7 December 2022, plainclothes police officers mounted an anti-narcotic operation at the carpark of a hotel in Tin Shui Wai, New Territories (“the Hotel”).  They spotted D1 carrying a sling bag and holding some plastic bags and walking hastily.  They intercepted D1 and searched her.  A key card of Room 756 of the Hotel (“Room 756”)  was found from D1’s front trousers’ pocket.  D1 was then taken to Room 756 where the police later found the dangerous drugs as set out in the 1^st charge.

6.On the same day, the staff of the Hotel attempted to use the key card of Room 767 (“Room 767”)  to open the door to Room 767 for the police to enter to conduct a search inside. However, as the door was locked by a security lock from the inside, police officers had to use a tool to break the security lock in order to enter Room 767.  Upon entering Room 767, police officers found D2 standing outside the toilet, and another female standing near the television.

7.Police officers then conducted a search in Room 767.  A total of 21.5 grammes of a solid containing 18.78 grammes of cocaine, 156.28 grammes of a solid containing 123.83 grammes of ketamine and 10.56 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 9.72 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“Ice”), together with various packaging paraphernalia, were found and seized in Room 767.  The police also found two drug inhaling devices with traces of methamphetamine in Room 767. The police later found D3’s DNA on some of the plastic bags of cocaine and a drug inhaling device which were seized inside Room 767.

8.When arrested and cautioned on 28 January 2023, D3 remained silent.

9.According to the Hotel’s records, D3 was the registered tenant of Room 767 between 21 November 2022 and 7 December 2022.  CCTV recordings captured that each of D1, D2 and D3 had frequently attended both Room 756 and Room 767 for the period between 26 November 2022 and 7 December 2022.

10.In December 2022, the estimated street value of all the dangerous drugs seized in Room 767 was between HK$114,357 and HK$119,161.

11.In the Summary of Facts, D3 admitted that he knowingly possessed all the cocaine, ketamine and methamphetamine hydrochloride seized in Room 767 for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Background and mitigation regarding D3

12.Ms Kathy Sze, counsel acting for D3, submitted a set of written mitigation submissions on his behalf.  The Court was informed that D3 was born in Hong Kong and is now 38 years old.  He received education in Hong Kong up to Form 7.  His parents were separated when he was 11 years old.

13.D3 was married but is presently divorced with a son who is now 15 years old.  The son was living with D3 before his arrest, but he now lives with his mother.

14.D3 has a sister who is a chronic mental patient at the Castle Peak Hospital requiring treatment from time to time.  When his sister was discharged from hospital, D3 had to take care of his sister’s daily needs. 

15.D3’s father is now over 60 years old, a truck driver.  He suffers from chronic heart disease and has to attend regular follow-up appointment.  Before his arrest, D3 always accompanied his father to attend such medical appointment.

16.D3 was a tattoo artist, earning a monthly salary of HK$30,000 to HK$40,000.  His tattoo shop ceased to operate after he was remanded in custody.

17.Ms Sze invited the Court to use a combined approach to sentencing and adopt a term of 8 years’ imprisonment as the overall starting point for the 2^nd charge.  She also urged the Court to find D3’s role as a courier or storekeeper.

Sentence

18.In sentencing D3, I will follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

19.I should first identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantities of the dangerous drugs in question.  In the present case, three types of dangerous drugs were seized.

20.When more than one type of dangerous drugs are involved in a trafficking offence, the court will adopt a combined approach in sentencing.  As explained in HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung, CACC 208/2024 [2026] HKCA 885, the ratio test is more readily aligned with the present framework of dangerous drugs sentencing and is appropriately deployed as a means of cross-checking whether a composite sentence is appropriate.

21.The tariffs for sentencing offences of trafficking in cocaine and methamphetamine hydrochloride (“ICE”)  are set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.  For 10 – 50 grammes of cocaine, the starting point is 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment (§62 of the Judgment).  For ICE with a quantity less than 10 grammes, the starting point is 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment (§66 of the Judgment).  The sentencing tariff for trafficking in ketamine is set out in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1.  For 50 – 300 grammes of ketamine, the starting point is 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment (§95 of the Judgment).

22.In the present case, as suggested to the Court by Ms Sze, I would use the quantity of ICE, out of the three types of dangerous drugs seized, as the base drug and adopt a notional starting point of 6 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.  According to the tariffs, the quantity of cocaine seized would attract a notional starting point of 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, whereas the quantity of ketamine seized a notional staring point of 6 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.  To take into account these two other quantities of dangerous drugs, I will enhance the base starting point of 6 years and 11 months to a notional starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment.

23.The ratio test, used as a cross check, also yields a sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment.  

24.The Court shall need to assess the role and culpability of D3 based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court and the mitigation submissions advanced on his behalf.  In the present case, the dangerous drugs were kept in the hotel room which was registered in D3’s name.  The Hotel’s CCTV recordings captured that D3 had frequently attended both Room 756 and Room 767 during the relevant period.

25.In my assessment, as suggested to the Court by Ms Sze, I find D3’s role to be that of a courier and storekeeper.

26.Turning to aggravating factors, if any.  It is an aggravating factor for an accused to traffic in more than one type of dangerous drugs “because in such a situation the trafficker is able to cater to a far wider market than the trafficker in only one kind of drug.” (See HKSAR v Yim Hung Lui Ricky, CACC 266/2011, and HKSAR v Islam Azharul [2020] 1 HKLRD 644). 

27.For the 2^nd charge, three types of dangerous drugs were involved.  I will enhance the starting point of 8 years by 3 months, taking it to 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. 

28.D3 has a total of 25 previous convictions, six of which were drugs related, including two previous convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  For the second previous trafficking conviction, he was sentenced to 34 months’ imprisonment in August 2021.  Soon after being released from custody for that trafficking offence (within one and a half months), D3 committed the present offence.  Because of that and in light of all his previous convictions, I shall further enhance the starting point by 6 months, taking it to 8 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. 

29.Dealing with mitigating factors.  In the present case, given his guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity, D3 is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the overall sentence down from 8 years and 9 months to 5 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.  In light of other mitigations advanced on papers, I shall give D3 a further discount of 3 months, resulting in a final sentence of 5 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

30.Lastly, I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and D3. Accordingly, D3 is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 5 years and 7 months.

Mr. Antony Leung, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the Prosecution

Ms Kathy Sze, instructed by Messrs. Wat & Co., for the 3^rd Defendant