HKSAR v. Cheung Lai Ming

HCCC 199/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 199 OF 2025

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or property contrary to section 54(a)  of the Crimes Ordinance Chapter 200; one count of attempting to make explosive substance contrary to section 55(1)  and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance Chapter 200, two counts of possession of explosive substance contrary to section 55(1)  of the Crimes Ordinance Chapter 200.

2.On 23^rd May 2022, police officers arrived at the defendant’s residence in Wong Tai Sin.  Upon a search of the defendant’s residence, police officers found chemicals weighting 20kg of all kinds inside.  Laboratory apparatus, equipment, electronic components, a postcard depicting a desecrated regional emblem and political posters were also located.  Inside a glass beaker, police officers found 236g of picric acid.  

3.After the revelation of the existence of one storage unit which the defendant had rented at an industrial building in San Po Kong, police officers proceeded to search that storage unit.  Inside that storage unit, police officers found similarly an array of chemicals weighing about 14kg.

4.In addition, police officers uncovered messages inside the defendant mobile telephone that the defendant had exchanged with various persons between 27^th August 2019 and 23^rd May 2022.  In those messages the defendant was in constant discussion with people on various topics regarding the research, development and the manufacturing of chemical explosives and biological agents such as anthrax. 

5.Intended targets were mentioned.  They included individuals such as police officers, customs officers, prosecutors, judges and government officials.

6.Targeted locations were discussed.  They included Police Headquarters, Police and Sports Recreation Club, court building, MTR station, government official residence and the residential address of one Justice of Appeal. 

7.What was mentioned in these messages certainly was neither jokes nor tricks as put forward by the defendant in his video recorded interview.  The conspiracy was a dead serious one given the social and political context in the years of 2019 to 2022. 

8.The intention of the conspiracy no doubt was to deploy explosive substances to cause maximum chaos in the society, to disrupt public order and to undermine the stability of the political order in Hong Kong, if not to overthrow the then HKSAR government. 

9.Not only law enforcement officers, judges and government officers were targeted, innocent ordinary citizens who happened to be present at MTR station would also be subjected to serious and substantial risk too.  The conspiracy was an evil one and of no different from any plan to mount any terrorist attacks in densely populated cities anywhere in the globe. 

10.In Attorney General and Cheung Shu-tai and others[1], the respondents were convicted of causing an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property contrary to section 53 of the Crimes Ordinance Chapter 200.  It was held that having regard to the nature of the offence, heavy punishment would be required in which retribution and deterrence would be weighty considerations, and that the appropriate starting point was 15 years’ imprisonment. 

11.In the case of Cheung Shu-tai, a bomb made out of cut plastic Coca-Cola bottle packed with commercial explosives which was then attached underneath a car in Causeway Bay exploded, causing devastating damage to the car and to cars nearby.  The victim was fortunate as he was away from the car fetching a fire extinguisher when the explosion took place.  The incident seemed to arise out of business dispute. 

12.The Court of Appeal stated in Cheung Shu-tai that where terrorist sought to attack the integrity of the state, extreme and condign punishment would be justified:

“However, it is an offence which will always be serious. Public abhorrence for an offence which puts ordinary members of the public in serious danger is obvious. It will always call for heavy punishment in which retribution and deterrence will be the main considerations. Nevertheless, to balance the matter, there are undoubtedly more serious instances. One obvious one is where terrorists seek to attack the integrity of the State by causing widespread public fear in a wave of bombings. Such cases would call for extreme and condign punishment.”

13.In HKSAR v Lo Yat Sun Louis[2], it was mentioned by the Court of Appeal in paragraphs 26 and 28 of the judgment that:

“26. That said, it is clear that the gravamen of the section 54(b)  offence, whether it be “making” or “keeping”, is the intent to endanger life and property. When the intent is there, it matters not whether an accused participated physically in the making of the explosives or was found to be in possession of such.

28. With the emphasis on the intent, the actual and potential harm caused or to be caused by the explosives should be a major factor to be considered by a court in sentencing.”

14.Although the defendant was not charged for any offence under section 55 or 54(6)  of the Crimes Ordinance, his intention in the present case was clear, namely to attack the executive and judicial branch of the government.  The explosion the defendant conspired with others to cause was of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property.  The potential harms, if carried out, would cause widespread public fear in the wave of bombings.  Ordinary members of the public would be put in serious danger too. 

15.The detailed discussions between the defendant and his co-conspirators pointed to the seriousness of their intention in implementing the plan.  The research and development in making various bombs was in-dept.  Not only procedures of making bombs were mentioned, chemicals for their makings including precursor chemicals for making high explosives (高性能炸藥)  such as TNT, PETN, HMTA, TATP were also found at the defendant’s residence.  High explosives were one of the ingredients in making plastic explosives (塑膠炸藥).

16.The length of the conspiracy in the present case was over two years and nine months.  Unlike the case of Cheung Shu-tai where personal grudge was involved, this case was one which the defendant and his co-conspirators sought to attack the integrity of the Special Administrative Region by causing public fear.  The only difference between the present one and the case of Cheung Shu-tai was that the latter had successfully made and placed a bomb inside the victim’s car which fortunately caused no injury to the victim and that the maximum sentence for the offence under section 53 was one of life imprisonment. Nevertheless a 15 years imprisonment term was deemed appropriate in Cheung Shu-tai’s case.  Although the present one was still at its planning stage, the number and the variety of bombs contemplated were far more.  The potential harm was far greater. 

17.The defendant is now aged 35, a computer programmer and electronic engineer.  No doubt he was familiar with all the electronic parts or components involved in making bombs.  Given the maximum sentence is one of 20 years’ imprisonment and the remarks mentioned by the Court of Appeal, I am of the view that a notional starting point of 16 years is warranted.  The defendant indicated his plea after the case had been committed to the High Court for trial, as such a discount of 25% will be given. 

18.Apart from his plea, I do not see any other meaningful mitigating factors.  For the 2^nd count the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.

19.For count 3, the charge was very specific.  It was the making of picric acid inside his residence, 236g of picric acid in liquid and solid mixture form.  According to the Government Chemist, picric acid was an explosive chemical used as grenade and explosive contents of mines.  According Superintendent Roberts, the defendant’s messages with others included feasible procedures of making picric acid by chemical reaction between phenol and nitric acid. 

20.Picric acid in its wet state would not cause an explosion.  It would only cause an explosion when it was dry.  It could however be dried on an absorbent surface such as coffee filter or cloth.  In its explosive state, it had slightly more explosive power than TNT.  10 to 20g of picric acid would be capable of causing a practical explosion which in terms would cause serious bodily harm (for example removing a hand or foot or death)  if the explosion occurred with immediate contact with the head or vulnerable organs. 

21.It was mentioned by Superintendent Roberts that during the transfer of the picric acid from the defendant’s residence to the government laboratory, crystals were beginning to form rendering it highly unstable.  One could therefore see the obvious potential danger caused to the public. 

22.The maximum sentence for the offence under section 55 is one of 14 years’ imprisonment.  There is no evidence to indicate that the final yield of the picric acid upon the mixture being dried.  However, given the fact that the drying process was a relatively simple one and crystals had been formed during the transfer, and the fact that Superintendent Roberts decided to destroy the mixture there and then, the final yield would not be insignificant. 

23.As such, a notional starting point of 10 years will be adopted.  A 25% discount will be given.  For the third count the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 

24.In so far as the 4^th count is concerned, the chemicals involved were numerous.  Paragraphs 21 (c)(d)(e)(f)(j)(k)(l)(m)  and 22 listed out the uses and effects of all the chemicals found at the defendant’s residence.  Superintendent Roberts concluded that in view of the large quantities of potassium chlorate and the partially processed picric acid, together with other range of chemicals, manufacturing of one or more types of explosives had taken place at the defendant’s residence.  In other words, different types of bombs were in their making. 

25.In view of that, a notional starting point of 10 years will be adopted. A 25% discount will be given.  For the 4^th count the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 

26.As for the 5^th count is concerned, only 1190g of sulphur was involved.  Sulphur can be used to make gunpower.  In view of that, a notional starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment will be adopted.  For the 5^th count the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. 

27.Having considered the overall criminality of the case and the totality principle in sentencing, it is ordered that:

(i)  the sentences imposed on the 4^th and 5^th count will run concurrently with each other;

(ii)  one year on the 3^rd count and one year on the 4^th and the 5^th count combined together will run consecutively to the 12 years imposed on the 2^nd count, thus making a total of 14 years’ imprisonment.

Mr. Derek Lau, SADPP and Mr. Herman Wan, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Mr. Ma Wai Kwan David leading Mr. Law Yu Hin Emanuel instructed by S.H. Li & Co., Solicitors, assigned by D.L.A. for the defendant