Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acid attack

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. LAU CHING HIM

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU CHING HIM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC271/2016

Judge's starting point for count 2 (21 years) was excessive; the Court of Appeal set the appropriate starting point at 18 years, applied a one-third reduction for guilty plea producing 12 years for count 2, and ordered 2 years of the 5 years 4 months sentence for count 1 to run consecutively to count 2, leaving the overall sentence unchanged at 14 years because (i) both counts reflected separate and additional culpability from a single incident, (ii) partial consecutiveness was justified by totality and not crushing, and (iii) no authority justified a starting point beyond 18 years in these c…
25 Nov 2011

HKSAR v. CHI CHI HONG, KEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHI CHI HONG, KEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC299/2010

The sentence was upheld because the attack was premeditated, caused severe and lasting injuries to multiple victims, the judge's starting point of 18 years was appropriate, the one-third reduction for the guilty plea to 12 years was justified, and ordering 18 months of earlier sentences consecutively was within judicial discretion; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
4 Sept 2008

HKSAR v. NGAI PIK LING

Citation

HKSAR v. NGAI PIK LING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC242/2007

The 6-year imprisonment was justified: the judge reasonably adopted a 10-year starting point for the gravity of the acid attack, reduced it for the plea and the applicant's mental condition, and updated psychiatric evidence showed inpatient psychiatric treatment was unnecessary so a Hospital Order was inappropriate; therefore the sentence stands.
9 Nov 2007

HKSAR v. LAU BO KI

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU BO KI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC412/2005

The appellant's act of pouring concentrated sulphuric acid and leaving the frail elderly victim to die constituted extremely serious manslaughter; absence of remorse, aggravating conduct and culpability warranted a custodial sentence of 16 years.
12 Sept 2001

NG CHING YING v. LEE SIU YEUNG DANNY

Citation

NG CHING YING v. LEE SIU YEUNG DANNY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI173/1998

The first defendant, knowing the bottle contained a toxic corrosive, deliberately threw its contents and is liable for the intentional injury; however the plaintiff's contributory fault (provocation and use of implements) amounted to one-third, so damages are reduced to two-thirds.
26 Jul 1996

LUK SO NGAN v. R.

Citation

LUK SO NGAN v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC116/1996

The trial judge lawfully exercised his sentencing discretion by starting at a generous 8 years and reducing by 50% to 4 years after careful consideration of psychiatric evidence and mitigating factors; the reduction was justified and there was no basis to further reduce the sentence, therefore leave to appeal against sentence was properly refused.
20 Jan 1995

R. v.WONG ON LIN

Citation

R. v.WONG ON LIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC246/1992

The Court held the sentencing judge's starting point of 15 years was appropriate for an acid attack intended to disfigure or cause grievous bodily harm, that the judge properly discounted to 13 years for the applicant's limited mitigation (good character, clear record), and that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant further reduction; the appeal was dismissed.
24 Jun 1982

NG WING-LAM v. THE QUEEN

Citation

NG WING-LAM v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC299/1982

The Court upheld the 10 year imprisonment sentence because a premeditated acid attack causing severe permanent disfigurement and loss of an eye warranted a very severe deterrent sentence; the applicant's youth, guilty plea and minor antecedents did not justify reducing that sentence.
10 Apr 1974

THE QUEEN v. MAK YUN-KIM

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MAK YUN-KIM
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC40/1974

Balancing comparable Full Court authority (Tam Fei v. R) and the specific extenuating facts of this case (quarrel context, extent of injury, contrition, time in custody), the judge imposed a 6‑month imprisonment sentence; the court held it lacked statutory power to review its criminal sentence and therefore did not reopen the sentence despite a mistaken expectation about immediate release.