HKSAR v. Cheng Pak Hei, Jeffrey
|
HCCC 332/2025 [2026] HKCFI 4169 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 332 OF 2025 -----------------
-----------------
--------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording
COURT: Defendant, you pleaded guilty on 2 October 2025 before a magistrate at Eastern Magistracy to two charges. The 1st charge was that of manufacturing dangerous drugs and the 2nd charge was that of trafficking in dangerous drugs. As a result of your pleas of guilty, you have been committed here to the Court of First Instance. In Charge 1, defendant, you admitted that on 6 July 2023, on the 27th floor, Flat A, Block 8, Metro Harbour View, Fuk Lee Street, Tai Kok Tsui, you manufactured a dangerous drug namely cocaine. In Charge 2, defendant, you admitted on 7 July 2023, at the same location as in Charge 1, you unlawfully trafficked in 1,247.68 grammes of a solid containing 970.43 grammes of cocaine and 0.06 grammes of a solid containing cocaine hydrochloride. The Summary of Facts dated 20 May 2025 has been admitted by the defendant as correct and they are as follows. On 6 July 2023, the police laid ambush nearby and conducted an anti-narcotics operation at the location as stated in the charge, hereafter stated as “the Flat”. At about 5 pm, defendant entered the Flat and left about one minute later. He was intercepted by police officers. Upon a search, two mobile phones and cash of $21,000 was found on the defendant. I should add and four keys. Upon the execution of a search warrant, the police conducted a search of the Flat in the defendant’s presence. Found inside the Flat were, amongst others, the following items: three metal pots containing a total of 0.14 grammes of a solid containing cocaine; four paper boxes containing a total of 18.4 kilogrammes of a solid containing sodium bicarbonate; one metal plate containing traces of cocaine; a glass container and a plastic scraper containing 0.53 grammes of a solid containing 0.43 grammes of cocaine; a mortar with pestle containing 0.01 grammes of a solid containing cocaine; and other paraphernalia containing cocaine. Also found were three electronic scales, very large quantities of resealable plastic bags and the drugs in the quantity as stated in Charge 2. Upon arrest and under caution for the offence of manufacturing dangerous drugs, the defendant admitted that all the cocaine found inside the Flat was cooked by him and he would receive $100,000 as a reward per month. At about 9.24 pm on the same day, a forensic scientist of the government laboratory attended the Flat for inspection. He was of the view that, considered collectively, the chemicals and paraphernalia seized from the Flat were items commonly associated with the process of making crack cocaine. In a video-recorded interview under caution, the defendant admitted he had manufactured cocaine in the Flat since 1 April 2023. He did so as he was indebted and he was looking to clear his debts. He had rented the Flat in his name. He was introduced to this job by a person with the name Siu Wan, whom he had met approximately two to three years before. The defendant, through Siu Wan, would arrange for couriers or drivers to deliver the uncooked cocaine to the defendant. After cooking the cocaine, Siu Wan would instruct him via WhatsApp as to the amount of crack cocaine to be passed to others. The defendant would supply them to the drivers that came to collect the drugs from him at different times of the day. Found in his white iPhone were WhatsApp communications with some drivers and messages as to the quantity to be given to the defendant. The estimated street value of the drugs in July 2023 was $1,341,256 (in powder form) and $1,489,730 (if in crack form). I turn now to the background and mitigation. Defendant’s counsel, Ms Vivien Chan, submitted written mitigation on his behalf as well as further supplemental mitigation in court. The defendant is single and now aged 25. He was 22 years old at the time of commission of the offence. He has a clear record. He was born and brought up in Hong Kong. His parents divorced when he was about 11 years old and he seldom contacted his father or elder brother. His mother had remarried and had a new family. He lived with his maternal grandmother in Aberdeen before his arrest. The defendant was educated up to year 2 in aviation at Baptist University. However, he saw no hope in the aviation industry during the COVID pandemic and discontinued his studies in 2020. He commenced working as a casual worker but quit a few months later due to back pain. The defendant came into financial constraints and Siu Wan showed care and offered him a cooking job telling him it was safe and the pay was good. However, due to greed and foolishness, he agreed to take part in cooking the cocaine and committed the present offences. He rented the premises, cooked and packed all the cocaine all in accordance with Siu Wan’s instructions. Three mitigating letters have been written, one by the defendant, one by his mother and grandmother. The defendant is very remorseful and feels particularly sorry for his mother and elderly grandmother whom he has deeply hurt and let down. The grandmother and mother say that he is a good and filial son, a polite and hardworking young man who is deeply remorseful. They have pleaded for the court’s mercy. The defendant plans to enrol in a long-distance course in sports psychology at the Chinese University as he participated in sports with passion so as to prepare for a career after his discharge from prison. I turn now to sentence. I turn first to deal with Charge 1, to which the defendant pleaded guilty to manufacturing dangerous drugs. The date to which the defendant is charged is on 6 July 2023, one day before the drugs in Charge 1 were found in the premises. The principle in sentencing for the offence of manufacturing dangerous drugs is well-settled law and goes back to the cases and decisions in R v Cheung Wai Kwong and Another, [1997] HKLRD 344 and adopted in HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai, [2022] 3 HKLRD 408, that the offence of drug manufacturing is much more serious than trafficking in drugs and warrants a heavier sentence. One of the factors to be taken into consideration is the quantity seized as a manufacturing workshop, as that showed to some extent its size and productivity and reflected the seriousness of the offence. Other factors included the length of time the workshop had operated, the scale and productivity of the operation, the quantity and standard of manufacturing paraphernalia and the role the defendant played. On the day the defendant was intercepted, 970.49 grammes of cocaine was found. The manufacturing paraphernalia were simple and basic items, but that was all that was needed for converting cocaine hydrochloride to crack cocaine, as set out in the admitted Summary of Facts. The defendant manufactured the drugs himself and used the Flat rented in his name as the workshop or station to store and then manufacture the dangerous drugs ready for his own trafficking. His participation was therefore significant in the manufacturing process. If the defendant had been trafficking in 970.49 grammes of cocaine, the starting point after trial would, on a mathematical calculation, be approximately 17 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. Taking into account the above factors, and that this is a more serious offence than that of trafficking a heavier sentence is warranted, I consider a notional starting point of 19 years and 9 months’ imprisonment to be appropriate. Giving the defendant a discount of one-third for his early plea of guilty, I reduce that term to one of 13 years and 2 months’ imprisonment in Count 1. The approach to sentencing in drug trafficking cases are the ones laid out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and complemented in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho, HKCA 150. I now turn to the applications and principles in respect of sentencing for Charge 2. The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. Pursuant to the tariff, where an amount trafficked is 970.49 grammes of cocaine, that falls within the bracket of between 500 and 1,500 grammes, attracting a starting point of between 16 years to 20 years’ imprisonment. That amount by itself would, arithmetically speaking, attract a starting point of 17 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence. The defendant received the drugs from other persons who drove them to him. He manufactured them, then supplied them back to the various drivers all on the instructions of Siu Wan. He also rented the Flat under Siu Wan’s instruction. The third step is to identify where in the relevant band the defendant comes, bearing in mind that it might be necessary to go outside that band, whether above or below, given the circumstances of the offence and role of the defendant. Taking into account the third band of where in the guidelines the defendant should lie, I consider an appropriate starting point to be one of 18 years’ imprisonment. I do not consider there to be any aggravating or mitigating factors, save for the defendant’s personal mitigating factors, save for the defendant’s plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity. From that, he will benefit from a one-third discount to the starting point. The starting point being 18 years’ imprisonment, that is to be reduced to 12 years’ imprisonment for Charge 2. I turn now to totality of sentence. I turn now to the principle of totality. In HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777, the court observed that as the drugs particularised in the trafficking charges were derived from and inextricably linked with the manufacturing charge, the better and safer course was to make all sentences to run concurrently. In the circumstances, I order Charge 2 to run concurrently to Charge 1, and therefore the total term to which this defendant is sentenced is 13 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. In observing the sixth step, I have observed the overall sentence passed. I am satisfied that it is fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
|
Cases cited in this judgment