The 1st and 2nd defendants in HCCC 362/2024, Wo Chun-wah and Ng Ho-ming, were originally the 2nd and 3rd defendants in HCCC 363/2024. They pleaded not guilty to the two charges against them, namely, trafficking in a dangerous drug together with Fung, and manufacturing of a dangerous drug together with Fung, and they were tried before a jury.
Having heard the evidence at trial, which lasted for 12 days, including Fung’s evidence, on 14 September 2026, the jury gave their verdict that Wo was not guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug, but guilty to manufacturing a dangerous drug, and Ng was guilty to both charges.
On 15 September 2026, I heard mitigations from counsel representing the defendants, and I now give the sentences against them.
On the morning of 21 July 2022, Fung was spotted by a Customs officer, PW1 C018621, in the vicinity of No. 19 Hing Yan Street, To Kwa Wan, Kowloon. Fung was seen throwing a plastic bag of garbage into the refuse collection box. Feeling suspicious, PW1 checked the bag of garbage, and found suspected items associated with drugs inside the bag. He reported the situation to his superior and was instructed to keep surveillance there.
He saw Fung appeared again in the afternoon at around 3.10 pm. Fung was seen coming out from No. 19 Hing Yan Street. PW3 C017405, together with other Customs officers, intercepted and eventually arrested Fung. Fung was brought to Flat 19, 1st Floor, No. 19 Hing Yan Street, and they gained entry to the flat with a bunch of keys found on Fung. Flat 19 was rented by Fung since December 2021.
When Customs officers entered Flat 19, Wo and Ng were found present in the premises. Inside Flat 19, a large quantity of drugs was found, which was subsequently confirmed by the government chemist to be a total of 16.85 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 12.97 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride. The total street value of the drugs amount to over HK$16 million.
Apart from the drugs, various tools and chemicals were found inside Flat 19, which were fit to be used for extracting and mixing of the heroin, and pressing the drugs into blocks.
The defendants and Fung were arrested by Customs officers. Under caution, Wo and Ng denied having any knowledge about the drugs and the tools found in Flat 19.
At trial, Fung gave evidence that he rented the flat on the instructions of Ng, and it was Ng who taught him how to mix and compress drugs. Since after the bulk of drugs were delivered to the flat, the three of them were manufacturing drugs together there. Wo was asked by Fung to assist in dealing with the drugs, and he was mainly responsible for packing the drugs. Wo also assisted in taking the mould for fixing and moving the bulk of drugs up the flat and unpacking the drugs.
According to Fung, the drugs were to be compressed into blocks of 350 grammes each, wrapped with craft paper, and the logos of “DoubleLine Group”(?) and “Smooth Sailing”(?) will then be stamped on the wrappings. After the drugs were packed, Ng will then sell the drugs to others.
I will first deal with the sentence of Ng. In sentencing the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, this court should follow the six-step approach in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, and follow the guidelines as set out in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138.
Under the guideline in Huang Ruifang, for trafficking in 5 kilogrammes to 15 kilogrammes of heroin, the starting point for sentence should be in the range of 24 to 27 years’ imprisonment. For 12.97 kilogrammes of heroin, the corresponding starting point should be 26 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
In the evidence, Ng was the mastermind of the crime, and the drugs were sold in blocks. His role could at least be described as the manager or organiser of the subject drug trafficking operation, and the starting point for sentence should be enhanced. In my judgment, an enhancement of 1 year’s imprisonment is appropriate.
Regarding the charge of manufacturing a dangerous drug, this court should assess the seriousness of the manufacturing offence with reference to the overall circumstances. In HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2022] 3 HKLRD 408, the Court of Appeal stated that it would be inappropriate to base a sentence solely or mainly on the quantity of drugs seized. The sentences for manufacturing offences should be far heavier than those of trafficking offences involving the same quantity of drugs.
In the present case, although the relevant date stated in the indictment was only one day. In the evidence, the manufacturing act was not one-off but continuous. The workshop was of considerable scale and productivity involving a large amount of chemicals and many manufacturing paraphernalia, including mould, compressor, grinder, and mixer.
In my judgment, the scale of the present manufacturing workshop can be regarded as in the high end of a medium-scale operation. To reflect the scale of the workshop, and considering also the role of Ng, who was the mastermind of the operation, the appropriate starting point for him in the manufacturing charge, in my judgment, should be 30 years’ imprisonment.
Ng was born in the Mainland and came to Hong Kong in 1978. He is now 70 years old. He was married and has a daughter and a son. He has two previous criminal records but not related to drugs. Understandably, Mr Leung, counsel for Ng, can advance no valid mitigating factor on behalf of him.
In the circumstances, for the charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, Ng is sentenced to 27 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. For the charge of manufacturing a dangerous drug, Ng is sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment.
Ng is now 70 years old, and he is now facing a very lengthy sentence. The probability of his having to serve the rest of his life in the prison is not low.
In totality, I order that the two sentences be served wholly concurrently.
I will now deal with the sentence for Wo. Wo is convicted of only the manufacturing charge. Although he was involved in the same manufacturing workshop, in the evidence, he was recruited by Fung at a later stage, and his main duty was packing the drugs. As submitted by Mr Tze, counsel for Wo, Wo played the least role among the three defendants.
Wo is 59 years old. He has two previous criminal records, which were unrelated to drugs. He is married, with two sons and a daughter, and his daughter is studying in a local university. According to Mr Tze, Wo worked as an electrician to support his family.
Wo’s wife and his younger son wrote letters to this court asking for the court’s leniency. They said that Wo has been a caring husband and father, and he was used by bad people.
Taking into account the relevant principles in considering the sentence of the offence of manufacturing a dangerous
drug, and the scale of the manufacturing operation I mentioned above, and in consideration of the role played by Wo in the present case, in my judgment, the proper starting point for sentence of Wo should be 27 years’ imprisonment. There is no other mitigating factors.
Wo is sentenced to 27 years’ imprisonment for the charge of manufacturing a dangerous drug.
Regarding Fung, he also faces only one count of manufacturing a dangerous drug. In the evidence, although he was recruited by Ng to operate the manufacturing workshop, he performed all necessary steps, including renting of the premises, buying and transporting all necessary tools and chemicals, accepting delivery of the drugs, performed actual manufacturing works, including mixing and compressing the drugs, and recruiting Wo to assist in the operation. I am of the view that Fung had played a role nothing less than Ng.
Fung is now 70 years old. He has 17 previous convictions which were unrelated to drugs. He has a daughter and a son, who are both mature adults living in the Mainland and have little contact with him. He has a relationship with a lady, and they have a young daughter who is now 7 years old.
According to Mr Lam, counsel for Fung, Fung committed the present offence out of financial difficulties. Ng promised to pay him HK$300,000, but before his arrest, he received only HK$10,000. Mr Lam urged this court to give Fung a substantial discount for his guilty plea and assistance to the prosecution by giving evidence against the other defendants in court.
As I mentioned above, Fung played the role not less than Ng in the present case. In view of the scale of the workshop and also the role he played, a starting point of 30 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
At trial, Fung had been very forthcoming in giving evidence relating to both Ng and Wo’s involvement in the crimes. In my view, he did not have any reservation in giving his evidence, and his evidence had assisted largely in leading to the convictions of both Ng and Wo by the jury. In the circumstances, a full discount of 50 per cent should be given to Fung for his guilty plea and assistance as a whole. There is no other valid mitigating factor apart from the above.
Fung is therefore sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.
