HKSAR v. CHENG KA KEUNG DENDY AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHENG KA KEUNG DENDY AND OTHERS

The court dismissed the appeals: the sentences were not manifestly excessive and the disparity principle did not assist because the co-accused who received suspended sentences was not more culpable than the appellants and, in any event, the disparity did not produce a legitimate sense of grievance under Stroud and R. v. Chan Wai Chiu.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHENG KA KEUNG DENDY AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: CHENG KA KEUNG DENDY; 2nd Appellant: LI KIN ON; 3rd Appellant: MA CHI WAI; 4th Appellant: LAU HON CHEUNG; 5th Appellant: NG KIT KEUNG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 April 2000
Case Number
HCMA1177/1998
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (on Appeal From Twcc) / Appeal Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Sentence Disparity, Suspended Sentence, Joint Enterprise
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Sentencing Appeal False Imprisonment Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Sentence Disparity Suspended Sentence Joint Enterprise

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

CHENG KA KEUNG DENDY

1st Appellant

LI KIN ON

2nd Appellant

MA CHI WAI

3rd Appellant

LAU HON CHEUNG

4th Appellant

NG KIT KEUNG

5th Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (on Appeal From Twcc) / Appeal Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentences were manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether disparity between sentences of co-accused justified interference
  3. 3 Comparative culpability of co-accused under established authorities

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the appeals: the sentences were not manifestly excessive and the disparity principle did not assist because the co-accused who received suspended sentences was not more culpable than the appellants and, in any event, the disparity did not produce a legitimate sense of grievance under Stroud and R. v. Chan Wai Chiu.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeals against sentence dismissed.