Hong Kong Judgment

Court of Appeal

HKSAR v. CHOY WING SING

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Leave to appeal refused because the sentencing judge's calculation of the starting point conformed to established sentencing practice and fell within an appropriate range; there was no valid basis to disturb the sentence.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal sentence refused.
  • Applicant reminded of right to renew the application and warned of consequences including possible direction regarding loss of time spent in custody pending appeal.

02

Material facts

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent Counsel: Mr Lucas Lai, PP, Department of Justice

Choy Wing Sing

Applicant

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Months: 44
  • Starting Point Months: 66
  • Ketamine Total Grams: 23.6
  • Ketamine Package Count: 38
  • Cocaine Total Grams: 3.68
  • Cocaine Package Count: 41
  • Applicant Age Years: 32
  • Fee Per Day: HKD 1,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant complained that the starting point was too high and explained his involvement was as a courier after responding to an online advertisement due to inability to find construction work; he pleaded guilty.
Respondent
Respondent and judge submitted that the judge followed sentencing practice and procedure, the combined approach produced an appropriate starting point within the penalty range, and the notional starting point was properly reduced by one third for the guilty plea; the judge had not even applied several aggravating factors which could have increased the sentence.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's sentencing practice as applied in judgment

    Combined approach for sentencing multiple drug types

  2. 02

    Court's sentencing practice as applied in judgment

    Reduction of notional starting point for a guilty plea (one third in this case)

  3. 03

    Court's sentencing practice as applied in judgment

    Sentencing guided by quantity, packaging and distribution facilitation

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because the sentencing judge's calculation of the starting point conformed to established sentencing practice and fell within an appropriate range; there was no valid basis to disturb the sentence.

Obiter and limits

  • Applicant reminded of right to renew the application for leave and warned of consequences of renewal including possible direction as to loss of time in custody pending appeal.
  • Judge had not taken into account certain aggravating features (two drugs, ketamine usage dynamics, ready-for-distribution packaging) which, if anything, would have supported a higher sentence.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal refused

  • Leave to appeal sentence refused.
  • Applicant reminded of right to renew the application and warned of consequences including possible direction regarding loss of time spent in custody pending appeal.

Source and reliance status

Court of Appeal · 4 March 2022

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of Appeal

Judgment· 4 March 2022

[2022] HKCA 381

bjbj !+o/ CACC 252/2021 [2022] HKCA 381

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 252 OF 2021 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO 26 OF 2021) ___ HKSAR Respondent v CHOY WING SING Applicant ___ Before: Hon Zervos JA in Court Date of Hearing: 4 March 2022 Date of Judgment: 4 March 2022 ___

J U D G M E N T ___ The applicant applies for leave to appeal against his sentence of 44 months imprisonment, following his conviction on his own plea of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 27.2 grammes of a solid containing 23.6 grammes of ketamine and 5.95 grammes of a solid containing 3.68 grammes of cocaine. The drugs were contained in consumable quantities in a large number of packets: 38 plastic bags of ketamine and 41 plastic bags of cocaine. The applicant had the drugs hidden in a private car, in which he was sitting in the driver s seat, at 4:45 am on 28 July 2020, in To Wah Road, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon. He admitted he was responsible for distributing the drugs in areas in Kowloon for a fee of $1,000 per day. At the time of the offence, the applicant was 32 years of age, with a clear record. He lived with his parents, while his wife and young daughter lived in mainland China. He worked as a casual construction worker and part-time driver in order to support his family. It was submitted on his behalf that he got involved in this offence because he responded to an advertisement for a courier on the internet as he was unable to secure work in the construction industry because of the current economic climate. In determining an appropriate starting point, the judge applied the combined approach because of the involvement of two types of drugs. He arrived at a

starting point of 66 months imprisonment, having assessed that it was within an appropriate range of penalty against the check tests. He reduced the notional starting point by one third for the applicant s guilty plea to 44 months imprisonment. The applicant complains that the starting point was too high. The judge s calculation of the starting point followed sentencing practice and procedure, which was within the appropriate range of penalty. As pointed out by the respondent the judge did not take into account the following aggravating factors that may have resulted in an enhancement of his sentence: the trafficking involved two drugs, which would have catered for a wider market; ketamine is commonly used with another drug to prolong its effect; and the drugs were contained in packets for ready distribution to a large number of users. The applicant has no cause for complaint of the sentence he received and leave to appeal his sentence is refused. The applicant is reminded of his right to renew his application for leave to the Court of Appeal, but he is also informed of the consequences of doing so, which may include a direction for any loss of time spent in custody pending his appeal, if the Court were to come to the view that there was no justification for the renewal of his application. (Kevin Zervos) Justice of Appeal Mr Lucas Lai, PP, of the Department of Justice, for the respondent The applicant appears in person

PAGE - 3 -

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V m\m\ h];1 hL)o hL)o hL)o hzR= hA+Y gd%J gdMi gd];1 gdn ygWgC5 hD33 h];1 gdl< gdWk hu}| hD33 hD33 h Bo hW"C gd + gd + gd Bo gdQU uk]U hU^N hX9( hX9( hX9( h Bo r p# gd : r p# hU^N hU^N hU^N 09&P :pX9( [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> 0B($ 0B($ C|i, ,$~\ Uu$ | )()d] EGe) dDw*~$ C|i, ci0,$~\ 0@[x= QGR1 *)o1g2 "Nz5V mih6 7J|0T 8v/T ?G.: 3&<d] @[x=-m =qNRR (;>= AhlS 6'YAg2 N"Fp BhFM\ J1P[r .8hJ ^iN,$~\ N +fb qNRRp J|0T5 "V^u ,$~\?G.: +)@]v? a!^1P[r `*)o1 +fb jdqe%4 f1P[r J]Hh 1P[rp &xr?G.: t +fb 5Dny Setup Normal.dotm Windows User Microsoft Office Word Judiciary Hong Kong Title !+o/ !+o/ !+o/ <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APA.XSL" StyleName="APA"

xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{459B822D-3A8A-4799-B653-579A666842EA}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.