The story
Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal ended the lower trafficking sentencing scale for herbal cannabis on 20 January 2023. It accepted expert evidence that herbal cannabis and resin now had similar THC concentrations, and set out cultivation sentencing bands based on estimated annual production. Two men appealing lengthy sentences for commercial cannabis growing both lost their appeals.[1]
Earlier courts had allowed for weaker herbal cannabis
In the 1995 review, evidence put average THC concentration in resin at about four times that of herbal cannabis. Judges were told to adjust the resin-based trafficking scale when sentencing herbal cannabis or oil offences.[2]
That distinction appeared in Chor Lui’s 2001 appeal. The judge described a lower benchmark for herbal cannabis, though he upheld two months in prison for selling two cigarettes containing 0.24 g.[3]
Two growing operations prompted the review
Nguyen Thang Loi had been sentenced to seven and a half years for trafficking and cultivation connected with premises in Tai Po. The court treated his roles as grower and supplier as separate wrongdoing and upheld making part of the trafficking sentence run after the cultivation sentence.[1]
Dang Hung Ngoc received eight and a half years after pleading guilty to cultivation at a villa in Clear Water Bay. Police found 552 plants and 195 saplings, alongside equipment for an indoor operation. The sentencing judge accepted his role as a gardener but considered it important to the commercial enterprise.[1]
The court used weight and expected yearly production
For trafficking, the revised scale treated herbal cannabis and resin alike. Its lowest band remained up to sixteen months below 2 kg, while larger bands extended to ten years or more above 90 kg. These bands guide the sentencing starting point before adjustments for the individual case.[1]
For cultivation, the court used estimated annual yield, taking account of plant weight, plant numbers and crops per year. It also required attention to the offender’s role and the nature and scale of the operation.[1]
The cultivation bands ran from below two years for annual yield below 5 kg, through two to seven years for 5–50 kg and seven to ten years for 50–150 kg, to above ten years beyond 150 kg. The statutory cultivation maximum remained fifteen years.[4]
Both sentences stood
The court upheld Nguyen’s and Dang’s sentences after considering their roles and the scale of the operations. Its judgment became the new reference for cannabis trafficking and cultivation sentencing, alongside the possession and supply rules described in the Hong Kong profile.[1]
Listed for context. No score change is recorded for Hong Kong here.
References
- Hong Kong Court of Appeal — HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi and Dang Hung Ngoc, 20 January 2023CACC 145 and 217/2019; paragraphs 1–29 and 94–109: case facts, trafficking/cultivation tariffs, individual culpability and dismissalsarchived
- Hong Kong Court of Appeal — R v Tuen Shui Ming and another, 9 June 1995CAAR 12/1994; paragraphs 1–4, 10–20; total weight, low THC, revised tariff and sentencesarchived
- Hong Kong High Court — HKSAR v Chor Lui, 3 August 2001HCMA 535/2001, paragraphs 1–18; two cigarettes, commercial sale, earlier convictions, guideline discussion and dismissed appealarchived
- Hong Kong Department of Justice — summary of the 2023 cannabis sentencing judgmentThree-page official summary, February 2023; judgment date 20 January; revised trafficking and cultivation tablesarchived
Checked. The date and the event were compared with a source that was read.