Case Document

100%

HCCC 50/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 50 OF 2026

-----------------

	HKSAR
	v
	Chan Kin-wang

-----------------

Before:

DHCJ A Wong

Date:

27 August 2026 at 12.17 pm

Present:	Mr Antony Leung, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
	Mr Yau Chi-wai Billy, instructed by DLA, for the accused

Offence:	(1) & (2) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
	(3) Manufacturing a dangerous drug (製造危險藥物)

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one charge of manufacturing a dangerous drug. He was committed before me for sentence.

In sentencing, I have considered the whole of the circumstances, including the nature and facts of the case, the type and quantity of the drug involved, personal background of the defendant, and mitigation put forward on his behalf. I have also had regard to the sentencing principle and approach as laid down in cases such as HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

In the evening on 12 April 2024, the defendant walked out from a flat on the 7th floor on an industrial building in Kwun Tong, having stayed inside for about 10 minutes. He was holding a brown paper bag in his right hand. Police officer stopped him. Upon search, 23 plastic bags each containing cocaine were found inside the brown bag the defendant was holding. The total quantity of the drug was 475 grammes of a solid containing 416 grammes of cocaine. Under caution, the defendant said, “Ah sir, I only help another person to deliver the drugs as I owe debts to others”.

Then the defendant was escorted back to the flat from which he came out. He opens the door using a passcode. There were eight rooms in the flat. The defendant used a key to open the door of room 2. In the room, officers found more cocaine, some contained in plastic bags and some on items such as electronic balances, metallic pots, a bowl, and a pair of scissors. Cocaine found in the room was a total of 495.18 grammes of a solid containing 421.65 grammes of cocaine. More than 400 grammes of sodium bicarbonate were also found. Under caution, the defendant said, “Ah sir, I only help another person to handle the drugs as I owe debts to others”.

The defendant had been the tenant of room 2 since 24 December 2023, monthly rental was $5,500.

An expert is of the opinion that the chemicals and paraphernalia found in the room were items commonly associated with the process of making cocaine base from cocaine hydrochloride.

I was told that the defendant is now 22 years old. He attended education up to Form 6. He had worked as a part‑time cook and at the time of arrest was a warehouse staff.

He has a conviction record in 2024. For a charge of possession of dangerous drug, he was fined $2,000. Learned counsel for the defence, Mr Billy Yau, informed the court that it was for a trace amount of cannabis which the defendant bought out of curiosity. Further, Mr Yau pointed out that the conviction was entered after the defendant had been arrested for the present case, therefore the defendant should be treated as a person having a clear record for the purpose of this case. To this I agree.

In mitigation, Mr Yau, stressed that the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is remorseful. Mr Yau also said the defendant was cooperative upon arrest and frankly admitted his involvement.

Mr Yau informed the court that the defendant committed the offences with a desperate attempt to pay off his debts which he incurred mainly for the medical treatment of his mother and asked the court to take into account the relatively young age of the defendant.

As regards to family background, Mr Yau told the court that the defendant’s father deserted the family when the defendant was a minor. The defendant has a sister who has migrated to Canada. The defendant had been living with his mother in a public housing flat. The mother does not enjoy good health and was twice diagnosed with cancer. A medical report of the mother was produced. As the defendant is remanded in custody, she has to take care of her various medical problems without any family support. To finance the medical care of the mother who suffered a relapse of cancer, the defendant succumbed to temptation to earn fast money and committed the present offences.

The defence produced a letter from the defendant in which he set out the background of his committing the offences and expressed remorse. The defence also produced a letter from the mother. She described the defendant as a person of good nature. She also said he had been working part-time to ease the financial burden of the family. She pleaded leniency on behalf of the defendant.

The drug involved in this case was cocaine. Having regard to the observation of the Court of Final Appeal in Seabrook v HKSAR [1999] 2 HKCFAR 184, I am of the view that the tariffs set out in the recent case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No. 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138 should be applied. The case is also relevant to sentencing of the manufacturing count.

For Charges 1 and 2, the trafficking charges, I see no reason to depart from the tariff. In my judgment, the role of the defendant was not high in the hierarchy. However, taking into account the substantial quantity of drugs in his possession and that he was the person responsible for this manufacturing place, I am of the view that those who engaged him have considerable trust on him reflecting that he would not be a very marginal member in the syndicate.

I do not find any aggravating feature which calls for an enhancement in the sentence.

The quantity of cocaine respectively in both charges was in the region of 400 grammes. According to Huang Ruifang (No. 3), a sentence of 12 to 16 years should be considered. In my view, the following are the appropriate notional sentences of the trial:

Charge 1, 14 years and 9 months; and

Charge 2, 15 years.

Charge 3 relates to the offence of manufacturing dangerous drugs, which is an offence in most circumstances much more serious than trafficking in dangerous drugs.

It has been established in various cases, such as R v Cheung Wai Kwong, [1997] HKLRD 344 that, in sentencing the manufacturing offence, the quantity of drug found is relevant, but this is not the only factor to be taken into consideration. The court should also consider factors including the scale of the operation, the capacity and productivity of the equipment, the length of time the manufacturing operation had been going on, whether the manufacturing station had been producing or was likely to produce a substantial quantity of drugs, and the role of the defendant.

In R v Wong Chun Ping, CACC 493/1983, the Court of Appeal remarked that:

“...only in exceptional cases, for instances if it is clear that the capacity of the equipment is very small, should a court consider a sentence of less than 10 years’ imprisonment, on a conviction for manufacturing dangerous drugs.”

In HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2022] 3 HKLRD 408, the Court of Appeal remarked that:

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

I have also had regards to R v Tang Kam Kwong, CACC 183/1996 which was cited by Mr Yau for the reference of the court.

In my view, the observations of the Court of Appeal in all of these cases have to be viewed in the light of the downward adjustment of the sentencing tariff in Huang Ruifang (No. 3).

In assessing the scale of the operation, I consider the abovesaid factors in the light of the proved facts and take into account the submission of Mr Yau, including the following:

(1) Overall speaking, the operation was not minimal but was not sophisticated or of industrial scale;

(2) The paraphernalia found were rather primitive, basic and rudimentary;

(3) No evidence that high-standard apparatus and advanced manufacturing methods were adopted;

(4) The only chemical involved was sodium bicarbonate, which was easily obtainable from the legitimate market;

(5) The defendant was clearly not the mastermind, his role can be described as one of a cooker;

(6) Despite the tenancy was for two years, it started in December 2023, occupation of the flat was less than half a year; and

(7) There is no solid evidence to prove that it was a long-running manufacturing operation spanning a period of time.

The total quantity of the drug seized was slightly about 830 grammes of cocaine. I find that the only reasonable inference that all of these were products of this manufacturing place.

In my judgment, the operation was not a minimal one but I do accept the submission of Mr Yau that it was not of industrial scale. What the defendant had done involved manufacturing crack cocaine. The defendant played a major role in this manufacturing station though I accept that he was not the mastermind of the operation.

I have to take into account the manufacturing potential of the place and there is no indication that if the defendant had not been arrested he would have stopped his involvement in the operation.

Taking into account the whole of the relevant circumstances, in my judgment, only a notional sentence after trial of 18 years is sufficient to reflect the culpability of the defendant in this manufacturing operation.

The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate. Having regard to HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1, in all the circumstances I am of the view that the defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for each charge and the overall sentence in the circumstances.

Having considered the whole of the circumstances, including what Mr Yau ably said on behalf of the defendant, in my judgment the defendant is not entitled to any further discount in the case.

The defendant is being sentenced for three charges.

For the two trafficking charges, having regards to HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777, I accept the submission of Mr Yau that the overall sentence for Charges 1 and 2 should be decided on the basis of the total quantity of the drug found. In my view, the aggregate notional sentence after trial for these two charges should be 17 years and 3 months. That said, in the circumstances of this case, due to the impact of the existence of a manufacturing charge, this approach is in the pragmatic sense not necessary, but it serves as a reference in deciding the ultimate overall sentence.

As regards Charge 3, the manufacturing charge, as said, my finding is that all the drug found was product of this manufacturing operation. Taking into account the whole circumstances of this case and the findings I have just mentioned, and having regard to the submission of Mr Yau, as well as cases including HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching [2011] 5 HKLRD 690 and HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] 4 HKLRD 777, I am of the view that it is appropriate to order the sentence for Count 3 to run wholly concurrently with the aggregate sentence for Charge 1 and 2.

In my judgment, both the individual sentences and the overall sentence to be imposed are fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances of the offences and the defendant.

For the reasons I have said, I impose the following immediate imprisonment terms on you: