HKSAR v. YEUNG CHOI MING
- Citation
- HKSAR v. YEUNG CHOI MING
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 28 March 2007
- Posture
- Appeal Against Sentence for Unlawfully Remaining in Hong Kong / Judgment Delivered
- Case number
- HCMA116/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 28 March 2007
- Posture
- Appeal Against Sentence for Unlawfully Remaining in Hong Kong / Judgment Delivered
- Case number
- HCMA116/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court upheld the 21 months' imprisonment because the appellant's repeated identical offences and history of prior custodial sentences justified an increased sentence and the asserted humanitarian circumstances were not sufficiently strong to warrant reduction.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; sentence of 21 months' imprisonment upheld
Orders
- Sentence of 21 months' imprisonment affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
The Appellant
AppellantThe Prosecution
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Imprisonment Months: 21
- Prior Similar Offences Count: 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal Against Sentence for Unlawfully Remaining in Hong Kong / Judgment Delivered
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the 21 months' sentence was excessive
- 02
Whether asserted humanitarian grounds justify reducing the sentence
- 03
The weight to be given to the appellant's prior identical convictions
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant pleaded guilty and sought reduction of sentence on humanitarian grounds: father with heart disease, elder brother seriously injured in a car accident, brother's wife has absconded leaving a child in need of care.
- Respondent
- Prosecution maintained that the appellant is a habitual offender with five prior identical convictions between 2000 and 2005 and that recidivism justifies an increased sentence of 21 months; the asserted humanitarian facts do not outweigh the appellant's deliberate risk of being absent when domestic matters arose.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Sentencing principles and the court's reasoning in this judgment
Recidivism justifies escalation of sentence for repeated identical offences
- 02
Sentencing jurisprudence and the court's reasoning in this judgment
Humanitarian circumstances can mitigate sentence but must be sufficiently strong to outweigh public protection and deterrence considerations
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court upheld the 21 months' imprisonment because the appellant's repeated identical offences and history of prior custodial sentences justified an increased sentence and the asserted humanitarian circumstances were not sufficiently strong to warrant reduction.
Obiter and limits
- If you keep committing the same crime, you will get a bigger sentence.
- The appellant knowingly took the risk of being absent from home and therefore cannot rely on resulting domestic difficulties as strong humanitarian grounds to reduce sentence.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; sentence of 21 months' imprisonment upheld
- Sentence of 21 months' imprisonment affirmed
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 28 March 2007
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.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 28 March 2007
bjbjU d8nv JiMb pellant _____ Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Line in Court Dates of Hearing: 28 March 2007 Date of Judgment: 28 March 2007 ____
J U D G M E N T ____ This is an appeal against sentence for unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong. The appellant pleaded guilty and received 21 months' imprisonment. It had been increased from the habitual 15 months by reason of the fact that on five previous occasions beginning in the year 2000 and going up to the year 2005, he had committed identical offences and had been sentenced then to terms of either 15 months, 18 months or 21 months. It goes without saying if you keep committing the same crime, you will get a bigger sentence and there is nothing wrong with a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment for this. The appellant today does not really disagree with that. What he seeks to do is to say that he has had a telephone call from home saying that his father has heart disease, that his elder brother has had a car accident and is seriously indisposed, and that the brother s wife has run away leaving a child in need of care. Even if all of those matters are true, they do not, in my judgment, amount to strong enough humanitarian grounds that would reduce the sentence. The history of convictions demonstrates that this appellant well knew what would happen if he was caught and he therefore knowingly took the risk of absenting himself from his own home and so being absent when domestic matters, such as he has described, arise. The JiMb son
PAGE -
PAGE CRT27/28.3.2007/MMcG HCMA116/2007/Reasons for Judgment
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 &`#$ &`#$ >BmV JUDGE.DOT Unisys Microsoft Word 9.0 IHav 2v"nv judiciary Title Pfr8nv Pfr8nv Pfr8nv Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
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.