HKSAR v. Chan Ching Wa

On 28 August 2026, Zervos JA handed down judgment in HKSAR v Chan Ching Wa (CACC 247/2025), granting the applicant leave to appeal out of time against an 18-year sentence for cocaine trafficking and conspiracy to manufacture, together with an appeal aid certificate so he can be legally represented at the substantive hearing. Mr Ng Wing Kit, SPP, appeared for the respondent. The applicant appeared in person, legal aid having been refused on 6 August 2025 and again on 12 August 2026.

The applicant had been sentenced by Andrew Chan J on 23 October 2024 to 18 years' imprisonment on each of two trafficking counts and one manufacturing conspiracy count, all concurrent. The judge combined approximately 2,468.35 grammes of cocaine across Counts 1 and 2, applied a starting point of 24 years 4 months under the Abdallah guidelines, enhanced it by 1 year 8 months for the applicant running a manufacturing and distribution centre from his residence, added a further year for a 2014 trafficking conviction, and discounted by one-third for guilty pleas.

The applicant filed his leave application roughly seven months late, relying solely on the revised cocaine sentencing guidelines in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, as clarified in HKSAR v Lam Man Tak [2026] 2 HKLRD 199. The respondent did not oppose extending time but opposed leave, contending any reduction would not justify appellate intervention.

Zervos JA held that:

(1) The applicant had been sentenced on the trafficking counts under the old framework and so could seek to argue the revised guidelines apply, at least to the trafficking component (§13).

(2) The applicant admitted a three-month role in the conspiracy, operating the manufacturing centre at his home with substantial quantities of cocaine hydrochloride, finished crack cocaine, and the paraphernalia of crack production, plus five or six deliveries for about HK$50,000 (§14).

(3) Following HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa and HKSAR v Au Chun Wah, manufacturing must be sentenced first and used as the anchor, with concurrent sentences for trafficking at the same place, though dual producer-retailer roles may warrant some consecutive terms to preserve totality (§§15-16).

(4) On the facts, an appropriate notional starting point would be 24 to 26 years, enhanced to 24 years 9 months to 26 years 9 months for the prior conviction, producing a post-plea range of 16 years 6 months to 17 years 10 months (§18).

(5) Two live questions justified granting leave: whether the Huang Ruifang (No 3) revision applies or bears on a manufacturing sentence, and whether the original 18-year term was manifestly excessive (§19).

For practitioners: when sentencing facts involving both trafficking and manufacture, the manufacturing component must be anchored first and the trafficking count ordered concurrent, unless dual producer-retailer facts call for partial consecutivity to preserve totality. Counsel should also be ready to argue whether the Huang Ruifang (No 3) bands can be deployed for the trafficking component even where manufacture anchors the headline figure.